PDA

View Full Version : UN’s 50M ‘Climate Refugees’ Are Missing!



Apocalypse
04-18-2011, 08:12 PM
What happened to the climate refugees?

By Gavin Atkins Apr 11, 2011



In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.

The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.
It so happens that just a few of these islands and other places most at risk have since had censuses, so it should be possible for us now to get some idea of the devastating impact climate change is having on their populations. Let’s have a look at the evidence:


http://tinyurl.com/3n93pxj

FYI, the UN has restated that even thou the refugees didn't show up as they declared, expect them come '20!

http://tinyurl.com/6yracjp

Novaheart
04-18-2011, 08:39 PM
The "desperate needs" of The Maldives is nothing more than a scam. The Maldives has successfully snookered The Netherlands into spending huge amount of money to "offset global warming" and now the government of the Maldives is talking about raising money to purchase a new location, presumably tropical and waterfront.

wilbur
04-19-2011, 08:42 AM
I don't really bother to investigate these things anymore... its literally no exaggeration to say that every single article or piece on global warming that I have investigated from a non-scientific source has turned out to either be outright false, or so misleading as to be essentially false. Honestly, this is true - not one stands out from my random samplings of selected articles I actually investigated, that has veered anywhere near accuracy.

I saw this article posted several days ago on slashdot - this was one of the first comments. While I didnt check any of this out myself, my prior experience tells me that this guy is probably right (his major error seems to be that this wasnt an american story, but that's irrelevant):

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/04/17/1319209/What-Happened-To-the-Climate-Refugees




This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting. If the UN had released a report claiming 50 million global warming refugees by 2010, there would be dozens of news articles on it. The supposed incriminating evidence is a Google Cache page with this map [grida.no] that doesn't itself say anything about refugees, but does highlight areas most susceptible to sea level rise. The "50 million climate refugees by 2010 [googleusercontent.com]" statement is not referenced anywhere in any UN report, it's a six words on one defunct graphic that was part of a larger report on world agriculture [grida.no] by the UN University. This 50 million by 2010 figure comes from Dr. Bogardi at the UN University in Bonn [guardian.co.uk], NOT the United Nations.

The problem with this prediction being made by any scientist is that keeping track of how many refugees there are is difficult (current estimate by the UN is 1 million a year [unep.org], a figure that the Red Cross lends support to with the statement that environmental disasters are displacing more people than war now) and the causes are debatable. The epic flooding in Pakistan created 10 million refugees [reuters.com], Hurricane Katrina added a quarter of a million refugees [www.cbc.ca], and desertification in Africa is displacing millions. Can we blame these events on Global Warming? Hurricanes and floods happen without a warming world, but a warming world increases the chances of such disasters happening.

Then there are the refugees that no one realizes. In the small coastal town where I live in North Carolina, houses have been falling into the swamp one by one for decades, but the residents blame it on people building their homes in flood zones, not realizing that sea levels in their state have risen three times the rate of rise on the rest of the Atlantic coast [sciencedaily.com]. People didn't build their homes in the water, the water rose 1.5 meters over the 50 years since they were built, but nobody realizes this because of landscape amnesia [wikipedia.org].

You can read all about the various estimates concerning environmental refugees on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. It took the author of this untruth less than an hour to post their nonsense and the deniers flooded the Internet with it quickly. It took me two hours to research and write this response, because I wanted to know what I was talking about, and I will only reach a very small audience in comparison. This is why I despair when considering how science could possibly stand a chance against the overwhelming confidence ignorance brings the unscientific masses.

Articulate_Ape
04-19-2011, 03:24 PM
I don't really bother to investigate these things anymore... its literally no exaggeration to say that every single article or piece on global warming that I have investigated from a non-scientific source has turned out to either be outright false, or so misleading as to be essentially false. Honestly, this is true - not one stands out from my random samplings of selected articles I actually investigated, that has veered anywhere near accuracy.

I saw this article posted several days ago on slashdot - this was one of the first comments. While I didnt check any of this out myself, my prior experience tells me that this guy is probably right (his major error seems to be that this wasnt an american story, but that's irrelevant):

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/04/17/1319209/What-Happened-To-the-Climate-Refugees


The United Nations was caught attempting to cover up evidence of its wildly inaccurate prediction that there would be some 50 million so-called “climate refugees” by 2010, embarrassing the international body already under fire for its misleading global-warming advocacy.

The UN Environment Program (UNEP) had warned in 2005 that sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by man-made climate change would lead to massive population disruptions. In a map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable, such as the Caribbean.

But it turns out that, not only did those areas fail to produce any “climate refugees,” their populations are actually booming. The first reporter to pick up the story, Gavin Atkins with Asian Correspondent, reviewed some of the most recent censuses and made a mockery of the UN’s alarmist claims.

For example, the population of the Bahamas, a low-lying nation of islands off the coast of Florida, grew by more than 50,000 people according to a 2010 census. It now has more than 350,000 — up from around 300,000 a decade ago. The population of St. Lucia grew by five percent during the same period. The population of the Seychelles and the Solomon Islands grew significantly as well.

“Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China, Shenzzen, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate refugees,” noted Atkins in the piece, entitled “What happened to the climate refugees?” A similar situation was observed in America.

More... (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/7156-un-cover-up-of-climate-refugees-scandal-fails)

And here... (http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/envirorefugees.htm)

And here... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/environmental-refugees-50_n_826488.html)


And right from the horses' asses (http://www.grida.no/search.aspx?q=50%20million%20climate%20refugees&cx=014503048611053942532:a4y8bpzqpkg&cof=FORID:11):

The UNEP's own report maps below (http://www.grida.no/_documents/iaastd-Synthesis_graphics.pdf). (you might want to save a copy to your computer since I suspect that it will be going bye-bye on the web soon.)

http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd359/JamesSavant/50MMrefugees.jpg


So what do the UNEP and other Warming cultists do when their claims are proven to be patently false?

Easy. They try to expunge the evidence and redate the apocaplyse (http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/coming-in-2020-50-million-environmental-refugees/).

Gore and Co. have payments to make on their private jets and massive mansions. Also the gas for their SUV motorcades is getting fucking expensive.


How much longer are you going to guzzle Gore's Kool-Aid before you notice that it tastes funny? Hmmm? :rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
04-19-2011, 04:03 PM
I think I spooked Warming World Wanker with the facts again. Poor guy. :(

Adam Wood
04-19-2011, 04:11 PM
Oops!

wilbur
04-19-2011, 10:26 PM
More... (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/7156-un-cover-up-of-climate-refugees-scandal-fails)

And here... (http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/envirorefugees.htm)

And here... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/environmental-refugees-50_n_826488.html)


And right from the horses' asses (http://www.grida.no/search.aspx?q=50%20million%20climate%20refugees&cx=014503048611053942532:a4y8bpzqpkg&cof=FORID:11):

The UNEP's own report maps below (http://www.grida.no/_documents/iaastd-Synthesis_graphics.pdf). (you might want to save a copy to your computer since I suspect that it will be going bye-bye on the web soon.)

http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd359/JamesSavant/50MMrefugees.jpg


So what do the UNEP and other Warming cultists do when their claims are proven to patently false?

Easy. They try to expunge the evidence and redate the apocaplyse (http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/coming-in-2020-50-million-environmental-refugees/).

Gore and Co. have payments to make on their private jets and massive mansions. Also the gas for their SUV motorcades is getting fucking expensive.


How much longer are you going to guzzle Gore's Kool-Aid before you notice that it tastes funny? Hmmm? :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, none of that really addresses some of the issues raised by the comment, I quoted....



The "50 million climate refugees by 2010 [googleusercontent.com]" statement is not referenced anywhere in any UN report, it's a six words on one defunct graphic that was part of a larger report on world agriculture [grida.no] by the UN University. This 50 million by 2010 figure comes from Dr. Bogardi at the UN University in Bonn [guardian.co.uk], NOT the United Nations.


As to whether the articles you quoted actually hit close to the truth or not, I'm open, but I'm not going out of my way to find out or care. Its really irrelevant. Whether or not that particular branch of the UN is corrupt or not, or kooky or not does not falsify AGW. AGW can be falsified - but not by way of a graphic on the UN website, pulled up by a journalist sewing controversy. So I'll continue to follow what mainstream science says on the matter, and discard everything that mainstream journalism says - because they lie nearly 100% of the time.

The media both exaggerates global warming issues or over emphasize alarming claims or otherwise dig through a sea of sensible, tame predictions to pull out the shit that will cause a stir..... and then will later ater attribute all their exaggerations to scientists, et al... and then when scientists confirm that reality is failing to live up to their sensationalist bullshit... it will be a flurry of stories about how the science was wrong, etc etc. This doesn't just happen on global warming - its everywhere - seriously.... you can't trust *anything* in the field mainstream reporting on science. Its all lies, from top to bottom.

I, nor you, have any idea the context of this image, whether it was emphasized or supported by anyone except the person who produced it, and irresponsible journalists, or whether it was cited in any significant policy initiatives... we simply don't know... and I doubt accurate information will be forthcoming. And unless you know all that information, this fact coming to light is about as informative as a rock.

You can make all jokes and jabs you want about gullibility, etc... but until you actually come to grips with just *how* bad the journalism is... you and the others who continually pick up any contrarian AGW news article that pops up on your news feed, cite it as gospel, and spread it around the net, you'll continue to be the biggest idiots of all.

Articulate_Ape
04-19-2011, 11:39 PM
Unfortunately, none of that really addresses some of the issues raised by the comment, I quoted....



As to whether the articles you quoted actually hit close to the truth or not, I'm open, but I'm not going out of my way to find out or care. Its really irrelevant. Whether or not that particular branch of the UN is corrupt or not, or kooky or not does not falsify AGW. AGW can be falsified - but not by way of a graphic on the UN website, pulled up by a journalist sewing controversy. So I'll continue to follow what mainstream science says on the matter, and discard everything that mainstream journalism says - because they lie nearly 100% of the time.

The media both exaggerates global warming issues or over emphasize alarming claims or otherwise dig through a sea of sensible, tame predictions to pull out the shit that will cause a stir..... and then will later ater attribute all their exaggerations to scientists, et al... and then when scientists confirm that reality is failing to live up to their sensationalist bullshit... it will be a flurry of stories about how the science was wrong, etc etc. This doesn't just happen on global warming - its everywhere - seriously.... you can't trust *anything* in the field mainstream reporting on science. Its all lies, from top to bottom.

I, nor you, have any idea the context of this image, whether it was emphasized or supported by anyone except the person who produced it, and irresponsible journalists, or whether it was cited in any significant policy initiatives... we simply don't know... and I doubt accurate information will be forthcoming. And unless you know all that information, this fact coming to light is about as informative as a rock.

You can make all jokes and jabs you want about gullibility, etc... but until you actually come to grips with just *how* bad the journalism is... you and the others who continually pick up any contrarian AGW news article that pops up on your news feed, cite it as gospel, and spread it around the net, you'll continue to be the biggest idiots of all.


I posted the the information found at the UN sanctioned data site Grid-Arendal (http://www.grida.no/about/), not just the articles about their epic fail. Did you even check my links, or were you to busy concocting the lame response above?

Look, chump, if you want to cling to your religion in the face of empirical evidence, you are free to do just that. In the meantime, might I suggest that you wait for your prophecies to be fulfilled just like everyone else of faith and stop pretending that you are doing anything more than that?

I loved this part at that site:


Our Mission

Our mission is to create environmental knowledge enabling positive change. This is achieved by organizing and transforming available environmental data into credible, science-based information products, delivered through innovative communication tools and capacity-building services targeting relevant stakeholders.

Our Vision

Our vision is a society that understands and values the environment on which it depends. In pursuing this vision, GRID-Arendal strives to be a creative, sustainable and motivating environmental organization making a difference locally and globally.

Our Values

As a UNEP affiliate and partner, we espouse core values that resonate with UNEP's mission.

Our core values are:

Integrity
Professionalism
Respect for diversity
Environmental commitment.

As a non-profit foundation with a public mission, we uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. We believe that a commitment to our environment and best practices defines the nature of our work and activities. At the workplace, we respect diversity and gender equality, and our policies reflect this engagement.

Yeah. How are your boats running?

It would be funny if it wasn't such an unprecedented crime.

And you are an unwitting (seriously) accomplice. Sleep on that.

txradioguy
04-20-2011, 06:30 AM
I think I spooked Warming World Wanker with the facts again. Poor guy. :(

Facts don't mean anything to the true believers like the Libtards we have here.

In typical Liberal fashion it's about emotions and feelings not logic and facts.