Slashdot Mirror
What Happened To the Climate Refugees?
Attila Dimedici writes "In 2005 the UN said that by 2010 there would be 50 million climate refugees. They even provided a map of where they would come from. However since that original story was posted the UN has taken down that page. They apparently don't know about Google cache."
100 million people will die in 5 years if you don't give me 10 billion dollars right now to fix it. If they don't die, don't complain that you gave me 10 billion I squandered on hookers and cocaine, be happy they didn't die. 5 years from now I'll need another 10 billion.................
What happened to them was that they were rebranded as "economic refugees" or "fortune seekers" and left to starve. The lucky ones are called "illegal aliens" (wouldn't want to make them sound human now would we) and work shitty jobs for slave wages.
World wide food prices have doubled. Changing climate is one factor contributing to that. Revolutions are always economic in nature, and North Africa is all revolutions these days. It is happening right now but if you refuse to look then you won't see anything. Or you can blame facebook or Charlie Sheen or whatever.
The author of that propaganda piece is a known shill of whatever industry pays him.
Here's a video that he tried to take down unsuccessfully.
that's nice but I don't care about that I would like to know why the UN said this in the first place if they knew that there weren't going to be climate refugees. I mean seriously, if it were coming true real estate would have fallen apart in those areas, which is wasn't. So it seems clear the UN had an agenda which they are now failing to hide and cover up.
Known shill? Possibly - I don't know him. But, in this instance, I have to agree with him, shill or not. I remember Al Gore promising apocolytipic events would happen by now. How 'bout that hockey stick?
Believe me, I take mankind's continued survival pretty seriously, but you'll have to admit that the global warming activists have employed to many of thier own shills. Not to mention, they demand to much faith. Here, on slashdot, I expect people to resist any kind of faith-based bullshit. How many insults have been hurled at theists, because they can't prove a damned thing they believe in? Come on people - stop being faithful to people who claim to be scientists, but haven't proven a damned thing.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
We really don't need any UN-bashing here. Slashdot is usually very good about this, I don't know how this story got through the editing process. Look, it's an inconvenient truth, one which should be quietly ignored. All they were trying to do was alarm people and get them to stand up and take notice, so we could do something about global warming. The fact that the prediction didn't exactly turn out the exact way it was said is immaterial. What's important is that we make progress on climate change legislation. Let's all remember in 2005, Kyoto wasn't a dead deal and there was a lot of room to influence the process in a positive direction.
Didn't turn out the exact way it was said? It turned out to be completely opposite. I'm all for a more environmentally conscious population, but these climate scare tactics are being used purely by corporations and academics to generate profit. (Carbon credits anyone? What a scam...)
1) The data have shown a correlation, not a causation.
2) There's nothing scientific about the predictions, and the observations do not match as you claim (the subject of the article is just a single case in point.) I'll bet one could develop an equally valid prediction based on MPAA/RIAA copyright submissions and radio/TV broadcasts as the cause of global warming.
3) When observations don't match predictions, instead of changing the hypothesis, the conflicting data is simply ignored. This is antithetical to true scientific. Again, the article presents but one example.
4) Claims of warming are based on reasonably accurate data covering less than 300 years, much less than that if global change is to be compared (everyone seems to agree that local changes can't be considered significant).
5) Proxies for temperatures prior to accurate measurement have been shown to be unreliable. The data has been "cherry picked" to make a case. Again, conflicting data have been ignored, or simply altered to match expectations. (See "Climategate")
6) There is vast evidence that climate is chaotic, and at time frames exceeding our accurate records. Conveniently, the difference in time frame between "weather" and "climate" seems to always depend on the point being made.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
No. The fact that humans are having a direct influence on climate change, and the trend globally will be that the planet will warm up is setteled and probably will not change.
The exact effects locally, how fast it will occur and other details are still up for change.
Please try to keep the conversation civil by the way. There is no call for the use of names or insults. Global warming really isn't a conspiracy. Yes it really is based on a vast amount of good scientific evidence and good people are working on the problem. It isn't about taking away your right to drive a big car or to make everything like the EU or to bring about some one world government.
The fact is that mankind genuinely faces a greater and greater risk of being wiped out as time goes on. This risk comes from a variety of sources. Many of which we cannot change directly, others we can. Global warming is one that we have evidence that we can.