UN Embarrassed by Forecast on Climate Refugees for 2010

[Phatscotty]

Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.

It was a dramatic prediction that was widely picked up by the world’s media. In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations University declared that 50 million people could become environmental refugees by 2010, fleeing the effects of climate change.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/35652

[khazalid]

'could' being the operative word, no?

[Phatscotty]

'could' being the operative word, no?

The writer uses would as well as could. I remember hearing this on the news at the time, and Congresspersons picked it up and tried to change everyone's lives based on this report. Coulda woulda shoulda, the report is 180 degrees wrong either way.

[Metsfanmax]

What the report was wrong on, was that people would leave areas that are environmentally dangerous to them. That doesn't mean they were wrong that people ought to have left. In other words, this has nothing to do with whether global warming is real and dangerous, it just has to do with how good a UN environmental agency is at predicting social responses to environmental danger.

[Neoteny]

Newsflash: people make mistakes! All science is a lie!

[Phatscotty]

What the report was wrong on, was that people would leave areas that are environmentally dangerous to them. That doesn't mean they were wrong that people ought to have left. In other words, this has nothing to do with whether global warming is real and dangerous, it just has to do with how good a UN environmental agency is at predicting social responses to environmental danger.

It means that their predictions never came true, not even close, in fact the areas names by the UN report actually have growing populations.

It means they don't know what they are talking about, for sure not enough to make predictions, and most certainly not enough to transform the way the world runs based on it.

[Metsfanmax]

Your thread title is misleading, though. The UN isn't erasing its "global warming" predictions, it's erasing its predictions on social responses to environmental stimuli.

[Phatscotty]

Your thread title is misleading, though. The UN isn't erasing its "global warming" predictions, it's erasing its predictions on social responses to environmental stimuli.

So, just want to be clear about what you are saying. You are saying their forecast was about the human response/reaction, and not about global warming causing refugees?

[GreecePwns]

In conclusion, climate change isn't a problem? Certainly you were trying to prove something more than that the UN doesn't know what its talking about.

[Metsfanmax]

Your thread title is misleading, though. The UN isn't erasing its "global warming" predictions, it's erasing its predictions on social responses to environmental stimuli.

So, just want to be clear about what you are saying. You are saying their forecast was about the human response/reaction, and not about global warming causing refugees?

Right, I'm saying this isn't a refutation of their prediction that global warming is making life more difficult in these danger zones. It's just a refutation of their prediction that people would leave because of that difficulty.

[Phatscotty]

Your thread title is misleading, though. The UN isn't erasing its "global warming" predictions, it's erasing its predictions on social responses to environmental stimuli.

So, just want to be clear about what you are saying. You are saying their forecast was about the human response/reaction, and not about global warming causing refugees?

Right, I'm saying this isn't a refutation of their prediction that global warming is making life more difficult in these danger zones. It's just a refutation of their prediction that people would leave because of that difficulty.

so in your opinion, is the UN correct about the environmental part of it?

[natty dread]

Phatscotty, how does it feel to be a sock puppet of the oil companies?

[Metsfanmax]

Your thread title is misleading, though. The UN isn't erasing its "global warming" predictions, it's erasing its predictions on social responses to environmental stimuli.

So, just want to be clear about what you are saying. You are saying their forecast was about the human response/reaction, and not about global warming causing refugees?

Right, I'm saying this isn't a refutation of their prediction that global warming is making life more difficult in these danger zones. It's just a refutation of their prediction that people would leave because of that difficulty.

so in your opinion, is the UN correct about the environmental part of it?

That embarrassing mishap regarding a typo notwithstanding, most scientists don't disagree with the broad-brush claims of the UN's scientific findings.

[GreecePwns]

Your thread title is misleading, though. The UN isn't erasing its "global warming" predictions, it's erasing its predictions on social responses to environmental stimuli.

So, just want to be clear about what you are saying. You are saying their forecast was about the human response/reaction, and not about global warming causing refugees?

Right, I'm saying this isn't a refutation of their prediction that global warming is making life more difficult in these danger zones. It's just a refutation of their prediction that people would leave because of that difficulty.

so in your opinion, is the UN correct about the environmental part of it?

That embarrassing mishap regarding a typo notwithstanding, most scientists don't disagree with the broad-brush claims of the UN's scientific findings.

50 million people didn't migrate, so climate change doesn't exist.

[Metsfanmax]

50 million people didn't migrate, so climate change doesn't exist.

At last, the smoking gun.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, how does it feel to be a sock puppet of the oil companies?

It feels like 50 millions climate refugees knocking on my door at the same time. Aren't you looking past the point?

[Phatscotty]

Your thread title is misleading, though. The UN isn't erasing its "global warming" predictions, it's erasing its predictions on social responses to environmental stimuli.

So, just want to be clear about what you are saying. You are saying their forecast was about the human response/reaction, and not about global warming causing refugees?

Right, I'm saying this isn't a refutation of their prediction that global warming is making life more difficult in these danger zones. It's just a refutation of their prediction that people would leave because of that difficulty.

so in your opinion, is the UN correct about the environmental part of it?

That embarrassing mishap regarding a typo notwithstanding, most scientists don't disagree with the broad-brush claims of the UN's scientific findings.

but, they were wrong here, weren't they?

[GreecePwns]

Okay Scotty, you win. 50 million people didn't move and the UN was wrong. You're so awesome to have disproved global warming without even needing the scientific method.

All hail Scotty!

[Metsfanmax]

but, they were wrong here, weren't they?

Yes, but not about the science. Congratulations, you spotted another UN error ;P

[Phatscotty]

Okay Scotty, you win. 50 million people didn't move and the UN was wrong. You're so awesome to have disproved global warming without even needing the scientific method.

All hail Scotty!

dont hail me yet, until I finish pointing out that me simply telling the truth and proving the UN was completely incorrect will still get me attacked and called names and mocked. Why do people still defend the theory and the institution that is pumping it?

"Truth is treason in an empire of lies"

[natty dread]

Thing is, oil companies have spent huge amounts of money to spread misinformation about global warming, like that it doesn't exist or can't be proven. They have bribed and bought numerous scientists, covered up information, etc. The whole global warming thing is bad PR for them, so of course they try to downplay it as much as they can - hey, who cares what happens to the planet, as long as the company can make some more quick money?

Therefore, every time you speak against global warming, you're perpetuating the lies spread by oil companies. You're in fact acting as their sock puppet, knowingly or unknowingly.

[Phatscotty]

Thing is, oil companies have spent huge amounts of money to spread misinformation about global warming, like that it doesn't exist or can't be proven. They have bribed and bought numerous scientists, covered up information, etc. The whole global warming thing is bad PR for them, so of course they try to downplay it as much as they can - hey, who cares what happens to the planet, as long as the company can make some more quick money?

Therefore, every time you speak against global warming, you're perpetuating the lies spread by oil companies. You're in fact acting as their sock puppet, knowingly or unknowingly.

so, is there any way possible that global warming could be a lie? or am I always going to be dismissed because of whoever else seems to agree that it's a lie?

oh, but the politicians, they are telling the truth for once, and has nothing to do with acquiring more power.

[GreecePwns]

So there are no scientific studies that are in favor of global warming. The studies that try to disprove it which are paid off by the oil companies are just there for their own sake.

[Phatscotty]

So there are no scientific studies that are in favor of global warming. The studies that try to disprove it which are paid off by the oil companies are just there for their own sake.

of course there are studies, going both ways. That is not my point (and you know it?)

The studies in favor of global warming keep on being debunked. How far back shall I go? in 1973, "politicians, academia, and media" predicted Florida would be 50% underwater by 2000. How much leeway should we give these "studies"? how much leeway would you give it if it was a conservative issue? Can we try being objective for once?

[natty dread]

The studies in favor of global warming keep on being debunked.

No, they do not.

Oil companies, however, like to tell you that they are.