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."

Comments

United Nations University, Not the UN

[ideonexus]

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 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" 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 by the UN University. This 50 million by 2010 figure comes from Dr. Bogardi at the UN University in Bonn, 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, 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, Hurricane Katrina added a quarter of a million refugees, 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. 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.

You can read all about the various estimates concerning environmental refugees on Wikipedia. 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.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[Pete Venkman]

Looks like you didn't read either.

"Furthermore, the acceleration appears consistent with other studies from the Atlantic coast, though the magnitude of the acceleration in North Carolina is larger than at sites farther north along the U.S. and Canadian Atlantic coast and may be indicative of a latitudinal trend related to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet."

The article does state that NC's coast is creeping more quickly than at other points along the Atlantic coast.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[Cyberax]

"It seems more than a little illogical to state that sea levels rise higher in one Atlantic coast state than the others."

Nothing illogical. 'Sea level' is an averaged value, which depends on currents and winds.

"And the primary sea level rise occurred well before the evil auto culture."

Coal was used in large quantities even before automobiles.

"But then I'm just an ignoramus according to the above post."

And here we both agree.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[FrootLoops]

Maybe I missed it, but why do you say "This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting"? The author of TFA, Gavin Atkins, appears to be Australian. The hosting site, Asian Correspondent, doesn't appear to be related to American news. I agree with the general statement that science reporting is more often than not just terrible, but I don't see how America's science reporting enters in here. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful post!

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[bunratty]

So any statement made by any researcher involved with the UN is essentially the same as an official statement by the UN? Furthermore, if I can show that any of these statements by any researchers turns out the be wrong, the entire field of study and research institution they're involved with is called into question? Using that logic, I can call into question any aspect of anything that's studied and any research institution.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[bunratty]

Avalanches have always and will always happen, and there's nothing we can do about it. We can, however, trigger avalanches so they happen when people aren't around so people don't get hurt. Diseases have always and will always happen, and there's nothing we can do about it. We can, however, develop vaccines and treatments to minimize human suffering. Just because we can't fully control nature doesn't mean we can't influence it.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[bunratty]

The data have always showed warming due to burning fossil fuels, ever since Arrhenius predicted it over 100 years ago. The impending ice age approaching was hypothesized by researchers doing exactly what you're doing -- instead of looking at the global temperature trend looking at small geographical areas. Clearly global temperatures are rising. There isn't a "scare campaign" that I can see, just predictions based on a scientific hypothesis, and observations that match those predictions. The problem with rising sea levels is that hundreds of millions of people will have to relocate, abandoning trillions of dollars of infrastructure. Solar power can be used with energy storage systems. Try reading some research on the areas you're discussing instead of spreading misinformation like your post does.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[phantomfive]

You make a valiant attempt to explain away the article, but the actual explanation is much simpler. The UN University indeed is the one who issued the report, but they are merely a UN think tank. Furthermore, UNEP also cited the report, and UNEP started the IPCC, so it is not unreasonable to say that the UN was claiming this. The UNEP is as much a part of the UN as the IPCC.

To really understand this, you have to look at the claim. Let's look at what the UN actually said:

there are now about 19.2 million people officially recognized as "persons of concern"-that is, people likely to be displaced because of environmental disasters. This figure is predicted to grow to about 50 million by the end of the year 2010.

Note that the number is not environmental refugees, but actually persons of concern. There is a huge difference between the two, and the second is probably not inaccurate.

Now, on the website in question, UNEP said this

Fifty million climate refugees by 2010

This is obviously not what the original researchers were claiming. Who knows why UNEP put that on their website, but it is most likely an error of their PR agency, not of their science. In short, the scientists were probably right, but the propagandaists were wrong.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[angel'o'sphere]

Currently we're seeing an unparalled scare campaign by the UN and some environmental organizations based on the same data that three decades ago showed an iceage approaching

Can someone provide some links regarding those organizations?
I learned 1975 that we likely run into a global warming, and I never heard about anyone proclaiming an approaching ice age. After all the next ice age is due in 35k years and not in the next 100 ... that is a complete nonsense claim. (Considering that we don't even know by what ice ages are caused ...)
angel'o'sphere

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[bunratty]

No, it's the continued observations of the warming that has been predicted for over 100 years. If we do not see the predicted warning, then feel free to say the researchers were wrong.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a student living in Bonn. I had never heard of the "UN university" so I looked it up. Bonn is a tiny university town and
already has one big university, the aptly-named University of Bonn, so I was suprised to discover that
it had another university hiding somewhere. As it turn out the "UN university" consists of four levels of a UN office building in the middle of the UN compound. From the website "The offices of UNU-EHS are located on the 22nd and 26th-28th floor of the Langer Eugen building on the UN Campus." It is fully funded by the UN and has nothing to do with Germany or Bonn. You made it sound like its some kind of private institute using the UN name, but its not. To call it a part of the UN is completely accurate.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're saying is true in terms of the climate lag, but your understanding of what it means is miles off. The fact that warming cycles due to orbital changes are followed by changes in atmospheric CO2 does not invalidate or in any way call into question the fact that CO2 causes additional atmospheric warming, nor that anthropogenic emissions have caused substantial warming.

A good idea in the future would be to take anything you hear about climate change and search the Skeptical Science page for it. Read this for more information:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[Maxo-Texas]

Close. The right starting and ending letters...different middle, "pula".

po----tion

Cut po-pula-tion.

Nothing we do will matter if we don't stop incenting new babies and let the population naturally fall to 3 billion (even 2 billion- the planet would be a paradise with 2 billion).

If you don't take these measures now- you STILL have take them when we hit 9 billion (10 billion... 11 billion) and life will be a lot more miserable then with dead fisheries, high cellulose fruits and vegetables and no meat except for the wealthy.

We can fix most of these problems in one generation.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN

[cdrguru]

I'd say you are an order of magnitude off of "paradise" - we need to get to around 250 million if we want "sustainable".

Even trying to cut the population in half (more than half, really) would require nearly preventing all births for 10-20 years. Sure, it is possible but it is entirely possible that you would wreck the motivation people have for having children completely. If you push too hard on this there is the possiblity that people will just give up.

This is a factor that some of the more radical environmentalists refuse to accept - that if you push hard enough the result will be that people will just give up entirely. All it takes is about 15 years of zero birthrate and you're not going to get it back, ever. Absolutely it is hard to disincent the drive to reproduce - but if you succeed the result could be catastrophic.

How hard would you have to push? Well, in the US and Western Europe today the population growth is negative. Many people feel that it isn't fair to bring children into a world of declining expectations and looming destruction of the environment. Mostly this is among educated young people. In the US we are left with immigration as the only population growth factor there is and I suspect Western Europe is pretty much the same way. This portends some very drastic changes in the coming decades as the population shifts away from educated European-extracted peoples and towards Latin American folks that have been subsistance farming for generations and no goals higher than survival. In most inner cities today the idea of the straight-A student is a subject of ridicule, as is the idea of going to college - what, do you want to be seen as trying to prove yourself better than your peers?

Re:So, where is the google cache link?

[ArcherB]

Did Slashdot become Fox News?
Deniers on my Slashdot?

Are facts that you don't like suddenly "Fox News"?

Let me see if I got the formula right:
Facts I don't like = Fox News
Fox News = Fake
Facts I don't like = Fake

Nice!

Scientific American throws in the towel

[jollyreaper]

Scientific American (irony not intended)

Okay, We Give Up
We feel so ashamed
By The Editors | Friday, April 1, 2005 | 55

There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either-so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.

Scientific American is a trademark of Scientific American, Inc., used with permission

© 2011 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

Re:Scientific American throws in the towel

[jmac_the_man]

So wait. As I understand it, the problem with Intelligent Design is that it's not falsifiable, right? There's no way to set up an experiment with observable results to disprove the statement, "A supernatural Creator created mankind." That's the problem, right?

By contrast, a subset of modern evolutionary theory states that "Dinosaurs became extinct roughly 65 million years before the first humans." This is falsifiable. Lets say an archeological team discovered a fossilized brontosaurus near a pyramid site in Egypt. Let's also say the brontosaurus had a block shaped like it was used in constructing the pyramids strapped to its head. Let's further say that the brontosaurus was found in the same soil layer that you'd expect other ancient Egyptian artifacts to be found in. And then lets say they found another brontosaurus near the Mayan pyramids. And one near the Great Wall of China. Eventually, science would come to the conclusion that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. (The fact that no one has been able to do this points to the strength of the original theory.)

The statements "Man is causing Global Warming" and "Man is not causing Global Warming," by contrast, are both falsifiable. A lot of the "Man is causing Global Warming" science is hard to falsify, but that's because the people doing that research are hiding their original numbers and only using massaged data to "hide the decline" in the amount of Global Warming taking place. For once, a scientist put out an easily falsified Global Warming theory, that is "By 2010, there would be 50 million climate refugees, and they'd come from these specific places." 2010 has come and gone, and there aren't 50 million climate refugees. Therefore, his falsifiable statement has been proven false.

The correct scientific thing to do is to discard his prediction and move on. Moving on means making changes to similar predictions that are based on the same data, or directly on his prediction. It means giving up whatever money was set aside to deal with the climate refugees. It means maybe next time, listening to the people who say that there won't be 50 million climate refugees in the next five years.

It doesn't mean mocking the people who disagreed with the original prediction for something that has nothing to do with what they said or did. A challenge to a theory isn't "an attack on science," but refusing to let go of an idea that has clearly been proven false is.

Anthony Watts is a known shill

[mangu]

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.

Re:Anthony Watts is a known shill

[Mashiki]

Well, the news says it is the worst weather (and the highest count of tornados) since 50 years.

If it bleeds it leads. This is sensationalist news, nothing more, nothing less. And highest count in 50 years? Well in the US they only have about 50 years worth of tornado tracking that's considered reliable in most places, and some of those are only reliable to 1970, but tornado numbers have been far higher. Hell where I live the 'accurate temperature and tornado count' is only goes back to about 1973.

Re:Anthony Watts is a known shill

[sonicmerlin]

People like you getting modded insightful are why I avoid Slashdot these days. The "hockey stick" talking point has been debunked so many times, including on this site, that all I can do is roll my eyes when people bring it up. The lack of trust that computer professionals have on this site for climate scientists' conclusions boggles the mind.

Didn't know about the UN prediction...

[wisebabo]

... but here in Vietnam we DO hear quite a bit about the rapid encroachment (and salinization) by the ocean into the Mekong delta. It is clear that with the ocean coming in (I seem to remember an encroachment figure of 1.4km/yr.) and that hundreds of thousands have already been displaced because they can no longer farm there. (This has driven the growth of the big cities which is where I live). The government is constantly projecting that millions more will move in the next few decades (This is from their Thanh Nhien News which is a pretty widely read paper, there's an English website you can visit).

Of course matters will soon be made even worse as upstream countries start damming the Mekong. (They may be doing so because the freshwater source in the Himalayas is losing its snowpack cover. This may also be due to climate change.)

Vietnam is supposedly one of the most susceptible countries to sea level rising but I can imagine things could be even worse in an even poorer (and closer to sea level) country like Bangladesh.

Re:Didn't know about the UN prediction...

[phantomfive]

Vietnam is supposedly one of the most susceptible countries to sea level rising but I can imagine things could be even worse in an even poorer (and closer to sea level) country like Bangladesh.

It is. National Geographic has a fascinating article on how Bangladesh deals with things like rising oceans and other types of floods. Note that they also have one of the highest population densities in the world, which makes it even harder to deal with.

Re:What it really comes down is...

[bunratty]

I've never heard anyone say "what we do to the planet is the only thing that affects weather and climate". That is not what the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming states. It states that in addition to all the natural effects on climate, humans can raise the temperature of the Earth several degrees above where they would naturally be if they hadn't burnt billions of tons of fossil fuels. Humans' impact of climate is dwarfed by natural effects, but that doesn't mean we can't affect the climate. You're employing a false dichotomy.

DID the UN claim that?

[mangu]

I would like to know why the UN said this in the first place

Is there any evidence that the UN made this prediction at all?

From TFA to the original paper there is a huge difference. For instance, TFA cites population growth in islands like Bahamas, St. Lucia, and Seychelles, which were never mentioned in the paper.

What Dr. Myers actually said is that there were 25 million refugees in 1995 fleeing disasters caused by desertification and global warming and that number could double in ten years. This seems a perfectly reasonable claim, if one wants to discuss it the best way would be to get hold of Dr. Myers method for counting refugees and defining which ones are "environmental" and see if that prediction became true.

Now, instead of doing this, TFA says the UN has "removed" a page that they, so much smarter than the UN that they are, recovered from Google cache. Then they invent a lot of false data, but they never realized that the actual paper is readily found by googling so their lies are easily debunked.

Original paper is NOT about global warming

[mangu]

With so many people posting their own version of facts, it helps knowing the past history of such people, so that you can disregard their claims. What made me google for this Anthony Watts was the claims he made that the UN had predicted 50 million refugees coming from Bahamas (population 330000), St. Lucia (population 173765), and Seychelles (population 84000).

With numbers like these, something looks wrong. So I googled for the original study to find out what it said. it was no surprise that neither Bahamas, Seychelles, or St. Lucia were mentioned there.

What it says is that there are million of refugees coming from regions affected by desertification and that number is increasing.

And you know what's the funny thing about all this? If you take the trouble to actually read the paper Dr. Norman Myers wrote, you will notice that he does not mention global warming at all. What he calls "environmental refugees" are, in his own words, "people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their homelands because of drought, soil erosion, desertification, deforestation and other environmental problems, together with associated problems of population pressures and profound poverty. In their desperation, these people feel they have no alternative but to seek sanctuary elsewhere, however hazardous the attempt."

In their haste to deny global warming, people like Anthony Watts do not even try to find out who they should write against...

Re:Original paper is NOT about global warming

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In that vein, it should be noted that (outside of highly unlikely corner cases of 1 meter rises in sea level causing a boat full of people going 'Dude, where's my island?' to wash up on your shores), it can be a bit tricky to identify the root cause of somebody's refugee status.

A reasonable percentage of Africa's ghastly little bush wars, for instance, are proximately about some goofy ethnic struggle or an ego clash between two psychotic strongmen; but the punchline generally boils down to the fact that the local subsistence agriculture/pastoralism hasn't actually been providing subsistence of late, which really stirs people up.

The assorted uprisings that a number of arab states are currently seeing are in the same boat. It isn't as though the populace just noticed that their leaders are brutal kleptocrats. A spike in food prices, though, has pushed them from feeling poor and downtrodden to feeling desperate and downtrodden.

Even if one wishes to leave macro-level climate out of the picture entirely, it isn't at all difficult to identify regions where high-intensity agriculture, and often shoddy practices, are converting farmland to desert or marginal scrub at a fair clip.