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.
#69–amodedoma==you say: “Small agricultural communities will be the safest bet and that’s what I sought out.” /// Do you think so? I would think those communities will be swamped by city folk looking for a “safe place.” Silly to think anywhere inhabitable willy be safe during a global apocolypse. No, I’d think some place “severe and NOT hospital” would be the place to go==like anywhere in Afghanistan? North Pole? someplace that requires special skills and knowledge to “live off the land?”–ie, so that anyone without that knowledge will die off in a few days and therefore they don’t go there?
I’ll fly by your location with google later in the day. Listen for me.
My own plan: have a good glass of wine while watching the sun set. Why argue with fate?
There are two sides to this debate.
One side makes claims of world doom, based upon analysis of data they refuse to make public, using models that are ‘proprietary’ and never agree with each other, and they want us to believe in a theory that isn’t falsifiable. (Remember last year’s screw-up when Siberia’s September’s temperature data was also entered as October’s? When Hansen corrected the data, the annual temperature anomalies for 2007, 2006, and 2005 mysteriously increased. Wow, talk about time traveling.)
The other side sees the games being played by doomsayers and calls “Bullshit.”
I’m a geologist.
Climate science is science. Rejection of anthropogenic climate change, evolution, etc., is a rejection of science itself. The words “debate,” “belief,” “proof,” “it’s just a theory,” etc. show a lack of understanding of science itself.
In a recent University of Illinois at Chicago survey sent to 10,257 Earth Scientists, 97.4% of the climatologists who responded answered “yes” when asked “do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.
Climatologists are reaching concensus that even the worst-case models of a few years ago are too conservative. The issue is about atmospheric pollution, now so immense that the Antarctic Sea is 100% saturated with carbon dioxide. The last time Earth saw such huge amounts of CO2, there was a mass extinction, even though organisms had millions of years to adapt.
#71 – pedro,
#68 I’m not questioning science. You’re the one that are following an unproven theory and in defending yourself, you paired with freddy into saying that nothing has been proven by science.
No. You’re a moran. You don’t understand what it means to go with the best available science. You instead say the science isn’t proven. Neither is the science linking cholesterol with heart disease. And, yet, if you have a brain larger than that of a gnat and your doctor tells you to lower your cholesterol from 280, you’ll probably listen. Well, this is where the planet is, except that its cholesterol (CO2) is 380 and rising but must be below 350 for a decent chance of avoiding a heart attack (catastrophic warming). But, in one case, you listen, though the proof is no better, and in the other, you risk not only your life, but the lives of all of humanity and many species far more beautiful and noble than our own.
So, when can we expect that pic with the dinosaurs?
Here’s one. Dinosaur species still outnumber mammal species 2:1.
#74 – Dan,
Excellent post and well said.
In a recent University of Illinois at Chicago survey sent to 10,257 Earth Scientists, 97.4% of the climatologists who responded answered “yes” when asked “do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
I doubt we’ve reached this level of consensus among doctors regarding the link between smoking and cancer.
Since I practice what I preach, even when I agree with the statement, and don’t believe statements of anonymous bloggers even when I agree, I hope you won’t mind if I augment your statement with a link to the study.
http://tinyurl.com/ylyssh8
#77 – ‘dro,
Sorry. I don’t think so. As Dan pointed out and I already supplied the link, I’ve already gotten 97.4 opinions on the subject and they all agree. When I get that many opinions from doctors, I can only play the odds that they’re correct.
And, remember, the doctor analogy is imperfect in that there is absolutely no downside to following the advice of climate scientists.
At worst, we’ll end up with:
Clean air to breathe.
An energy source that won’t run out.
An energy source that won’t fund terrorism.
An economy built on new technology for renewable energy instead of a bankrupt nation.
An ocean that remains at a PH that allows for fish to survive.
Mountains in the Appalachian range instead of more Mars-scape.
And, all of this without even mentioning climate change. Sorry, but I think you’re just completely and utterly full of shit. You ignore science. You ignore science. You ignore the actual state of the air and water. You ignore the political state of the world.
In short, you are a shill for the oil and coal companies who just want to make money hand over fist no matter who gets killed. And, you’re too stupid to realize it.
The last time I checked this was the coolest year in 60 years. The mountain glaciers were expanding as were other glaciers, Polar bear numbers are up and oh yeah. Al Gore has made millions spreading fud.
pedro my embarrassing son. shut the phook up. you are embarrassing your goat phooking mother.
She has already gone through almost the entire fifth fleet and a good part of the seventh fleet and it is YOU she find embarrassing.
come home and quit looking like a phooking retarded asshole moran. your pet goat dick misses you. And we all know how much you like dick. just this morning I told the mayor you like dick more than your goat phooking mother.
I don’t know what the mayor was talking about, something about an injunction, but phook him. oh wait, you already did. ha ha.
son, you remember you were no good at science. remember when you killed your pet goldfish when you tried to give it a blow job? or that chemistry experiment when you jerked off into a glass of water so you could watch the “swimmers”? face it, your stupid.
come home pedro. the village wants you, their worse idiot, back.
>I think we’re at a plateau. Either way, the trend is still up up up. A few slightly cooler years that are still way warmer than average just a few decades ago does not reverse a trend.
By that reasoning, temperatures can stay flat forever, and you could still argue that it is still warming, since you haven’t reversed the trend.
MikeN,
Not forever. Look at the graphs. They don’t stay flat long. Then there are long periods of steep incline.
Want to show me a cooling trend? Let me know when we get a decade of temperatures closer to the 1970s, and even that was a lot warmer than just a century earlier.
Watch this video and tell me that temps are cooling significantly. If they are, why is the ice still melting. You can see it in time lapse photos from just a few years. The ice loss is huge.
http://tinyurl.com/pjssa9
The video just came out. So, it was made during the time you consider to be cooling.
Things I learned from reading Dvorak Uncensored:
* Six million people are keeping the secret
that the moon landing was faked
* The same six million are keeping the secret
that 9/11 was in inside job
* Global warming is a Leftist plot
* Science is Loony Left propaganda
* (Maybe mathematics too)
* The Earth is flat
Okay, so if global warming is a liberal scam, what’s the point? Where’s the benefit?
* Scare people with Global Warming
* ?????
* Profit
Scott, don’t go all conFusiony on me. I said your reasoning is flawed based on a hypothetical. If temperatures stayed flat forever, people could still say the warming trend has not been reversed, after not just ten years, but 12 years, 14 years, 16 years, 20 years, there would still be a warming trend that is smaller. The warming has not been reversed.
In fact the temperatures could stay flat for 30 years, and people would say it is the warmest 30 years on record, warmer than all but 1998.
It gets a bit warmer, people will adjust.
It stops getting warmer, some people will say we are headed for an ice age.
It gets warmer again, some people will say the oceans are going to boil.
#85 – MikeN,
Scott, don’t go all conFusiony on me.
Thanks for the compliment. Mr. Fusion has one of the best brains on this blog site. He’s rational, well-spoken, backs up what he says, and really has a good handle on a great many issues. I’m more focused than he is, I think. He’s got a broader base of knowledge.
I said your reasoning is flawed based on a hypothetical. If temperatures stayed flat forever, people could still say the warming trend has not been reversed, after not just ten years, but 12 years, 14 years, 16 years, 20 years, there would still be a warming trend that is smaller.
Your time frames are way too short. We need to think in thousands of years. However, I’ll grant that if we level off for 30-50 years, we can say that we have temporarily leveled off at a warmer temperature than any in the last 650,000 years.
The warming has not been reversed.
To reverse warming requires cooling, so correct, leveling off would not erase the warming we have already caused.
In fact the temperatures could stay flat for 30 years, and people would say it is the warmest 30 years on record, warmer than all but 1998.
No. Only the mind-numb would continue to cherry pick a single particularly warm year out of the bunch. People who had brains would simply include the entire decade of the 90s and say that it was the warmest 30 (or 40 since a decade has been added) years since 650,000 years ago.
And, then, since we’re talking about geological time frames it would be up to future generations to keep an eye on things and watch for and determine the directionality and causes of future changes.
#87 – ‘dro,
Congratulations on maintaining your position as Old King Troll, self-proclaimed king of the blog and legend in his own mind. When you say something that parses out to be something other than semantically null, I will answer. Until then, call yourself king if you like. It may take the sting off of everyone around you on blogs and in meat space calling you an asshole.
Well you’d be wrong on the point of it being the warmest in 650000 years, as the medieval warm period was warmer 1000 years ago.
All but about two hockey sticks have been shown to be flawed.
The NAS Panel and the Wegman Report have found flaws in the early hockey sticks by Mann, as well as several others when they said bristlecone pines should not be used.
Now the Yamal proxy has been shown to be flawed.
http://climateaudit.org/?p=7168
This is what gets used to show a hockey stick when bristlecone pines are not available.
http://climateaudit.org/?p=7229
In fact the Yamal proxy has its current warm portion enhanced by a single tree. This single tree makes up 9% of the warming in the recent Kaufman Arctic warming paper.
climateaudit.org/?p=7241
The Kaufman paper and other hockey sticks also use some other proxies upside-down.
climateaudit.org/?p=7411
57, I suppose which things you deem valid will help determine which direction that theory is heading.
On the global warming computer models, you’re assuming all inputs have been accounted for. You’re also assuming that the assumption that CO2 drives the warming is also valid. There is no experimentation involved with these simulations. They play out beautifully the way people want them to with their assumptions.
The stock market is simpler to model because it is man-made. All the inputs are known. You objectively can’t say the same thing for global warming simulations. There’s debate over the inputs, so to say the simulations are simpler and more accurate (in spite of those debates) are self serving or a tad bit egocentric.
#91 – MikeN,
False. Just read the graphs on wikipedia to see that. The warm period was not as warm as today. This is not controversial. Any current graph will confirm that the warm period was cooler than we are today.
Also, the hockey stick graph, as I have shown specifically to you on other threads, has been updated to address the prior complaints about it and has not changed materially.
So, why do you continue to claim false information despite the fact that I know I have shown you previously that it is false.
Here’s a link to our prior discussion that you have conveniently forgotten.
http://tinyurl.com/ykrkm68
Here’s a link to the current hockey stick article that specifically states that it has addressed the issues you stated in our prior discussion.
http://tinyurl.com/lxyh3g
Here’s the abstract in its entirety, which is apparently too much for you to read, but I’ll re-quote it again in its entirety.
Note that last phrase again still not reaching recent levels. Got that? Still not as warm as now.
So, given that we have already had this conversation and that I have already pointed out that this current paper addresses the old concerns, I must ask why you deliberately make false statements?
Are you simply trying to reaffirm your nickname of Lyin’ Mike?
#92 MikeN,
Just checked again. Note that the second article you cite is more recent than the current hockey stick article. However, they have deliberately chosen an older version of the hockey stick graph. This is called lying, outright lying on the part of the authors you cite. Why on earth would they cite an older version of the article if not to deliberately ignore the fact that the newer version addresses their concerns and yet still shows the same thing, a hockey stick.
Such folks are lying asshats. Are you sure you want to cast yourself among them?
my son pedro should look into this. but he won’t. he thinks there are boogymen everywhere. that is why he likes to sleep under his covers with his pet goat, dick. pedro, he likes dick. he says he will do anything (almost) for dick. about the only thing pedro won’t do for dick is take his medication.
one day, pedro’s mother told pedro that she would take his dick if he didn’t take his medication. he didn’t take it and so she had his dick all day until it was time for her to go back to work. the US seventh fleet doesn’t wait for anyone you know and she couldn’t take pedro’s dick with her to work. She couldn’t earn her 50 cents from each sailor if she did.
but pedro, he has problems. we put him in the
loony binhospital. after the treatment settled him down, the doctor said we could take pedro out for awhile as long as he behaved and took the medication they gave us. as soon as we left the hospital pedro went looking for dick. all he could say was “dick, dick, where is my dick, I gotta have some dick”.we want the best for pedro, he is our son. we think, we didn’t do a dna test yet. they might have switched babies in the hospital. wouldn’t that be a pleasant surprise.
The mere fact that opponents of global warming are the same ones who will attack Obama for failing to do anything even before he took office, automatically deride any progress in Congress, blame Barney Frank because Bush screwed the economy, blame Clinton for whatever, and claim their tax protest was over 2 million strong when the Gay Rights March on Washington had larger crowds, no free national publicity, and no one openly showing their weapons.
The party of “NO” is again showing their hand. The very few times they do post something to back up their argument, they have to go to a far right wing blog for their information.
Yes, Uncle Patso in #83 definitely is listening to the wrong people. (yes, I am being just as sarcastic as Uncle P.)
MikeN,
I hope you’re not going to just stop posting on this thread and then later pretend you never re-read this thread and still don’t know that the hockey stick is valid … as you did last time.
97, Don’t you mean man-made global warming? There’s a slightly subtle difference between that and just saying global warming.
All I have to say with the rest of your partisan viewpoint, what’s a person to do? You have the party of “no” as you put it and I see the party of “blame Bush”.
The Democrats have had control of Congress since 2006. The Iraq War could have been ended before Barack ever became president. Congress needs no input from the president to kill funding a war.
As for universal health care, the Dems have had the votes since day one. They just tried to smooth things over with the public and it back fired. And now we have Afghanistan… a place where Obama campaigned saying it was the right war…. but now he’s waffling.
A lot of independent voters are going to either swing to the right or to a third party. The statue of limitations of blaming Bush but accomplishing little is expiring and the current Congress and administration will have to take personal responsibility for their decisions.
A lot of independent voters are going to either swing to the right or to a third party. 2010 might be a real eye opener.
Scott, that paper you cite is arguably even more flawed than the previous papers.
You can take their program and data and produce any shape you want with 1200 proxies.
They also use proxies upside down from their intended direction, just like the Kaufman Arctic warming paper.
The EIV method they cite is even worse, and is not a valid statistical method. They actually flip the weights of proxies from century to century. Sometimes, a high number means it’s warmer, sometimes it’s colder.
If you take 1200 proxies, and filter out the ones that show warming now, well you are guaranteed to produce a hockey stick even with random data.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/
The Mann paper even uses many proxies that aren’t real proxies, they are temperature measurements, and then Mann’s program uses them upside down! So now colder means warmer again. The Luterbacher series were reconstructions of temperature in different places from historical records, then they added the known temperature record to the end. Those are not real proxies.
They also somehow claim that proxies are reacting to global temperature rather than local temperature.
Michael Mann should not be allowed to publish without getting his work precleared by NAS and Wegman.
>they have deliberately chosen an older version of the hockey stick graph. This is called lying, outright
The second link is looking at the hockey stick chart in the IPCC report. Funny how you criticize them for going after one hockey stick because there are many other hockey sticks that ‘validate’ it, then when they point out flaws in the other ones, you criticize them for that as well.
This hockey stick you pointed out is not valid.
By the way if you are looking for results which say the opposite with regards to Medieval Warm Period vs now, how about:
Hiller, A., Boettger, T. & Kremenetski, C. 2001: Medieval climate
warming recorded by radiocarbon dated alpine tree-line shift on
the Kola Peninsula, Russia. The Holocene 11, 491–497
Seppa¨, H. 2001: Long-Term Climate Reconstructions from the Arctic
Tree-line. A NARP Symposium. The Arctic on Thinner Ice.
10–11 May 2001, Oulu, Finland, Abstracts, p. 29.
Hulde´n, L. 2001: Ektunnor och den medeltida va¨rmeperioden i
Satakunda. Terra 113, 171–178.
There are many others, as this was not a disputed point until Michael Mann showed up. The IPCC put this in their first Synthesis Report. Or you could just wait a hundred years, and then your claims will be valid as it gets warmer here.
>I hope you’re not going to just stop posting on this thread and then later pretend you never re-read this thread and still don’t know that the hockey stick is valid … as you did last time.
There are limits to how far back I’ll read a thread. I’ll probably check this a few more times.
Here’s someone else making the same point about a different hockey stick paper. If you filter out proxies, you could just be artificially creating the signal you are trying to find.
http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5833/1844a
#100, Lyin’ Mike,
We all know you didn’t read any of the sources you referenced.
Hiller, A., Boettger, T. & Kremenetski, C. 2001: Medieval climate
warming recorded by radiocarbon dated alpine tree-line shift on
the Kola Peninsula, Russia. The Holocene 11, 491–497
Seppa¨, H. 2001: Long-Term Climate Reconstructions from the Arctic
Tree-line. A NARP Symposium. The Arctic on Thinner Ice.
10–11 May 2001, Oulu, Finland, Abstracts, p. 29.
Hulde´n, L. 2001: Ektunnor och den medeltida va¨rmeperioden i
Satakunda. Terra 113, 171–178.
In fact, I can’t find full texts of any of them on line. Maybe if there was something in any of them that specifically points out Misanthropic Scott’s error then maybe you can point to them. Otherwise, please stop expecting someone to read a report looking for something to bolster YOUR argument.
#101,
Here’s someone else making the same point about a different hockey stick paper. If you filter out proxies, you could just be artificially creating the signal you are trying to find.
http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5833/1844a
The same thing. I am quite sure, giving your history, you have no idea what the hell you just posted.
You post some cryptic concept then expect others to sift through it to find what you mean. This is either extreme laziness on your part or you just copied it from somewhere else and don’t have a fucking clue what this all means.
Did you read this part of his study?
And you still want to filter out the proxies?
Oh ya, that was from pg 2,
Supporting Online Material for
Comment on “The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years
http://tinyurl.com/yzjgcoe
“The same thing. I am quite sure, giving your history, you have no idea what the hell you just posted.
You post some cryptic concept then expect others to sift through it to find what you mean. This is either extreme laziness on your part or you just copied it from somewhere else and don’t have a fucking clue what this all means.
”
LOL, projecting are we?
Evidence of warming on the Kola Peninsula (c. AD 1000–1300) is provided by treeline studies, which show that pine grew at least 100– 140 m above the modern limit during the Medieval period, which corresponds to a (summer or annual average) temperature at least 0.8°C higher than today (Hiller et al. 2001). A pollen reconstruction from northern Finland suggests that the July mean temperature was c. 0.8°C warmer than today during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (Seppa¨ 2001). A study based on oak barrels, which were used to pay taxes in AD 1250–1300, indicates that oak forests grew 150 km north of their present distribution in SW Finland and this latitudinal extension implies a summer temperature 1–2°C higher than today (Hulde´n 2001).
#103, Lyin’ Mike,
And again, you copy and paste from something you have no idea what it means.
Who did the oak barrel study, where was it done, and what were the parameters? How do they know the oak barrels came from the same area they claim?
And please tell us, do you understand Finnish? Yes, you posted a citation to a study written in Finnish. If you can understand Finnish then fine, but since less than six million people world wide understand it, that would put you in a very small group.
Lyin’ Mike
You still didn’t explain why we should eliminate the proxies from Gerd Bürger’s paper. He even said the assumed noises ranged from 0.1 to 0.7. Do you even realize the significance of that much range? Here, allow me to explain a little, that means he arbitrarily attached anywhere from 10% to 70% of the data as unreliable.
You posted it, you defend it.