UN Embarrassed by Forecast on Climate Refugees for 2010

[Phatscotty]

All power and wealth is mired in a history of exploitation - Rich does not exist without the existence of poor.

or

OR

rich and poor are relative terms, since modern middle class people live lives about as comfortable as those of the ancient ruling class, maybe even moreso.

so the question becomes, which economic system allows for the greatest advancements of technology and overall standard of living? do you think the answer to that is wealth distribution as well?

it doesnt matter to them what system works best. if there is one drug addict who does not have a brand new hybrid car to get to work, it's flawed.

[Phatscotty]

Good god, you are stupid.

so logical! so reasonable! all posters should aspire to make eloquent, informed arguments like this, and not instantly rage at others whenever their preconceived biases are called into question by science.

Yes, because my history of arguing with you lunatics while you make shit up and flail about into batshitcrazyville with your spun out perceptions of reality means I can't dismiss out of hand whatever fuzzy, random, and nonsensical nuggets of pseudoscience and distortion you have and always will tout as blatant facts. I'm not going to constantly treat your bankrupt meanderings as worth my time just because you have come up with a novel way to shit on human progress. Until you mooks can demonstrate you have the intellectual capacity to operate on at least an nineteenth century mindset, I'm not going to waste my time yelling at the brick wall that is the modern conservative movement.

f*ck.

when have you ever argued anything? Turning into a verbal barbarian and attacking someone elses facts with namecalling just dumbs it down and actually hands the other person the win.

Why do you avoid the overall point that the UN preditions for 2010 were "batshitcrazyville"????

[Phatscotty]

I'm sorry that I don't buy into your beliefs that everyone must have equal amounts of money and to have everyone else provide anything else they need. This country was founded on the complete opposite of that principle, and I choose to stand by that principle.

Your country (as was mine) was also founded with the explicit use of slave labour, upsurption of indigenous lands and the creation of an underclass - What I am trying to say is that the current distribution of wealth has not been spread through 'level' or 'free' means, despite the catch cries of what the 'free' market provides.

I don't think that everyone should have 'equal amounts' of money - I am just asking for a recognition of the fact that current accumalations of wealth have been built on exploitation of others; First through outright slavery, then through 'economic slavery', where the labourer is forced to sell his/her time/effort to live, while the capital owner accumalates more wealth off the back of that labour.

I can understand why you would be so 'pro-capitalism' because we (in the first world) are more often than not on the 'winning side' of the exploitation, to the point (like johnblue pointed out) that our middle classes would pass for the elite in poorer countries. We've been duped into apathy by gadgets that seduce and distract, while our relative opulence is based on the back of others hard work.

I guess we are breaking down in communication for the most part because we swap between domestic and international politics. Your point about the US taxation system has nothing to do with me and I don't pretend to know enough about that. But I first responded to your 'wealth redistribution' remark in regards to a world wide context.

I have a problem with capitalism not only because of the disparity of wealth within our own countries (although it is there) but more so on a world wide context -

then you have a problem with human nature, not the country of your choosing that is filled with humans and their imperfect decisions.

[Phatscotty]

I love how we're still talking about the UN and Global Warming . Warms me heart. If you fellas want to talk about political stuff, at least try to relate it to the topic.

-rd

We are, as the UN's policies on global warming are designed to push money around, not to actually help the environment.

[Phatscotty]

Global warming? It's not happening! It's not! No no no no no!

yet, when it comes to the prediction by the UN for 2010....

[Phatscotty]

they were wrong


The UN made a wrong forecast

just wrong.....or WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off?

[PLAYER57832]

they were wrong


The UN made a wrong forecast

just wrong.....or WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off?

Funny, several people have pointed out the error of YOUR thread title, but I notice you still fail to correct it.

See, to gain credibility, it helps if you actually provide proof of accusations you throw out.. as opposed to presenting one title and then claiming any old error means the entire organization is bogus. There was nothing in the report that in any way discounted Global warming. What was misjudged was the human response. But, see, poor people are not as mobile as was hoped.

So, ironically, what the report actually shows is that the impact will be even worse, because so few people are moving away from the areas to be impacted, NOT as you claim, that Global warming is not happening.

[Phatscotty]

they were wrong


The UN made a wrong forecast

just wrong.....or WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off?

Funny, several people have pointed out the error of YOUR thread title, but I notice you still fail to correct it.

See, to gain credibility, it helps if you actually provide proof of accusations you throw out.. as opposed to presenting one title and then claiming any old error means the entire organization is bogus. There was nothing in the report that in any way discounted Global warming. What was misjudged was the human response. But, see, poor people are not as mobile as was hoped.

So, ironically, what the report actually shows is that the impact will be even worse, because so few people are moving away from the areas to be impacted, NOT as you claim, that Global warming is not happening.

except for one thing, this thread is not an attack on the entire organization. its a specific example of one instnace, namely, the UN global warming predictions for 2010. where do you get these delusions?

This has nothing to do with the human response, and everything to do with the climate being soooooo bad that people would be forced to into refugee status. the climate did not crash, just this study and it's predictions.

go ahead, take a stab at it. where did the UN go wrong with this study? how should it be corrected? what has changed since 2006 concerning the prediction? was the science wrong? or the data that went into the science? is there any political motivations? who gains in power?

either we want to find the truth, or we just want to make reality be whatever we want it to be because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[Iliad]

they were wrong


The UN made a wrong forecast

just wrong.....or WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off?

Funny, several people have pointed out the error of YOUR thread title, but I notice you still fail to correct it.

See, to gain credibility, it helps if you actually provide proof of accusations you throw out.. as opposed to presenting one title and then claiming any old error means the entire organization is bogus. There was nothing in the report that in any way discounted Global warming. What was misjudged was the human response. But, see, poor people are not as mobile as was hoped.

So, ironically, what the report actually shows is that the impact will be even worse, because so few people are moving away from the areas to be impacted, NOT as you claim, that Global warming is not happening.

C-C-C-Combo breaker!!

Seriously, player, he was on a roll. Would've have been 10 posts if you hadn't broken it so viciously.

[Phatscotty]

For the record, I also believe in Climate Change. My beliefs however do not make me immune to the reality that there are a lot of politicians and elitists who are trying to exploit the issue for money and power, and I certainly will not be defending the exploiters as some others seem to.

[Neoteny]

well i'm probably never going to change your mind about that regardless of what i do. i will usually contribute to a thread if i have something "new" to say, but people like you who have preconceived notions about me will hardly even care as long as i'm the person saying it.

and you say "centrist" like it's a bad thing, when have i ever bragged about being a centrist? lol

i'm not sure where you guys are getting this image of me being a stuck-up know-it-all... i will never start troll-responding to someone who wants to have a serious discussion (like you and many others with your worldview do). whatever label you have to give me to avoid the issues, though.

No, you're not going to change my mind about you or Phatscotty until you demonstrate an understanding that your efforts at debate in the past have been almost entirely based on distortion. You have given me no reason to respect your opinion, and your expectation of receiving that respect despite your history of saying stupid things is hilarious. I'm not dismissing you out of hand because I can't argue with your nonsense, I'm dismissing you out of hand because I'm tired of arguing with your nonsense. Stop distorting this into the lie that I'm unable to argue about global warming.

Good god, you are stupid.

so logical! so reasonable! all posters should aspire to make eloquent, informed arguments like this, and not instantly rage at others whenever their preconceived biases are called into question by science.

Yes, because my history of arguing with you lunatics while you make shit up and flail about into batshitcrazyville with your spun out perceptions of reality means I can't dismiss out of hand whatever fuzzy, random, and nonsensical nuggets of pseudoscience and distortion you have and always will tout as blatant facts. I'm not going to constantly treat your bankrupt meanderings as worth my time just because you have come up with a novel way to shit on human progress. Until you mooks can demonstrate you have the intellectual capacity to operate on at least an nineteenth century mindset, I'm not going to waste my time yelling at the brick wall that is the modern conservative movement.

f*ck.

when have you ever argued anything? Turning into a verbal barbarian and attacking someone elses facts with namecalling just dumbs it down and actually hands the other person the win.

Why do you avoid the overall point that the UN preditions for 2010 were "batshitcrazyville"????

You wouldn't recognize an argument if it were covered in Ron Paul's semen. There is no victory possible if the loony side is not operating within reality.

[natty dread]

GLOBAL WARMING IS A SQUARE HOAX! THE CUBE GOD WILL REVEAL YOUR FOOLISHNESS ON CUBE DAY!

[john9blue]

well i'm probably never going to change your mind about that regardless of what i do. i will usually contribute to a thread if i have something "new" to say, but people like you who have preconceived notions about me will hardly even care as long as i'm the person saying it.

and you say "centrist" like it's a bad thing, when have i ever bragged about being a centrist? lol

i'm not sure where you guys are getting this image of me being a stuck-up know-it-all... i will never start troll-responding to someone who wants to have a serious discussion (like you and many others with your worldview do). whatever label you have to give me to avoid the issues, though.

No, you're not going to change my mind about you or Phatscotty until you demonstrate an understanding that your efforts at debate in the past have been almost entirely based on distortion. You have given me no reason to respect your opinion, and your expectation of receiving that respect despite your history of saying stupid things is hilarious. I'm not dismissing you out of hand because I can't argue with your nonsense, I'm dismissing you out of hand because I'm tired of arguing with your nonsense. Stop distorting this into the lie that I'm unable to argue about global warming.

i'd be glad to explain any examples of what you perceived as "distortion" by me in the past. i don't do those things. you only disrespect my opinion because you start with the conclusion that i say stupid things, because i disagree with you. that's about as closed-minded as it gets.

[BigBallinStalin]

'could' being the operative word, no?

Baby, don't get all operative on me!

[BigBallinStalin]

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

Is you calling me "stupid" or something?

[BigBallinStalin]

As soon as you tell a story about who is bad and who is good, imagine that while doing so, you're also pushing this button that lowers your IQ about 10 or more points. (Tyler Cowen [paraphrased])

[Neoteny]

well i'm probably never going to change your mind about that regardless of what i do. i will usually contribute to a thread if i have something "new" to say, but people like you who have preconceived notions about me will hardly even care as long as i'm the person saying it.

and you say "centrist" like it's a bad thing, when have i ever bragged about being a centrist? lol

i'm not sure where you guys are getting this image of me being a stuck-up know-it-all... i will never start troll-responding to someone who wants to have a serious discussion (like you and many others with your worldview do). whatever label you have to give me to avoid the issues, though.

No, you're not going to change my mind about you or Phatscotty until you demonstrate an understanding that your efforts at debate in the past have been almost entirely based on distortion. You have given me no reason to respect your opinion, and your expectation of receiving that respect despite your history of saying stupid things is hilarious. I'm not dismissing you out of hand because I can't argue with your nonsense, I'm dismissing you out of hand because I'm tired of arguing with your nonsense. Stop distorting this into the lie that I'm unable to argue about global warming.

i'd be glad to explain any examples of what you perceived as "distortion" by me in the past. i don't do those things. you only disrespect my opinion because you start with the conclusion that i say stupid things, because i disagree with you. that's about as closed-minded as it gets.

:facepalm:

Of course it's closed-minded (though not as closed-minded as it gets), but that's ok. I'm not going to buy a house from an arsonist, and I'm not going to get my science from you or Phatscotty. That's how the world works. You guys have demonstrated that you don't have a clue (take pride in that, it's the only thing you've demonstrated). I don't understand why this is so confusing and offensive to you.

And, god, no, I do not want to hear your racist, self-serving nonsense again... I've heard enough.

[BigBallinStalin]

Until the liberal politicians quit saying the rich have to pay their "fair share" of taxes while 45% of the country pays $0 in taxes, I will continue to spout my "inane shit" because it's demonstrably NOT inane. I'm sorry that I don't buy into your beliefs that everyone must have equal amounts of money and to have everyone else provide anything else they need. This country was founded on the complete opposite of that principle, and I choose to stand by that principle.

Firstly you know full well that is political spin. The 45% do not pay anything in federal income tax, but as you so much love to complain there are plenty more taxes. Also you know you're turning a blind eye to the fact that the rich have an exorbinant amount of money.

Look at that bottom 40 percent. It has maybe 5% of the wealth.

Also nice strawman, but progressive taxes is not the same as communism and the rich are still not paying their fair share of taxes. Since about the 70's the income and wealth of the rich ahs been escalating, as the income of the middle class remained the same and the middle class was eroded.

You will shriek about class warfare when instructed to, but the truth is the class warfare hs been easily won by the rich. The wealth distribution you so much love to disparage is always happening, and it's very much mostly happening up.

That chart is about statistical categories. It in no way representative of actual people because that chart does not account for the fact that people MOVE from those categories. It is true that the income distribution between the top 20% and the bottom 20% has widened, but more importantly, it is true that more and more people move from the bottom 20%, that people do fall from the top 5%, and over time, people have more and more "basic" commodities (like a car, air conditioning, a computer, access to better and better healthcare, etc.). Most Americans' wealth and income has increased over time.

[PLAYER57832]

Most Americans' wealth and income has increased over time.

Most people's wealth in terms of purchasing power has actually gone down, not up in the past decades. This is offset a little by cheaper advanced technology.

However, more important is that all of this is illusional because none of it really takes into reasonable account limited supplies of various substances-- minerals, arable soil, clean water, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

they were wrong


The UN made a wrong forecast

just wrong.....or WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off?

Funny, several people have pointed out the error of YOUR thread title, but I notice you still fail to correct it.

See, to gain credibility, it helps if you actually provide proof of accusations you throw out.. as opposed to presenting one title and then claiming any old error means the entire organization is bogus. There was nothing in the report that in any way discounted Global warming. What was misjudged was the human response. But, see, poor people are not as mobile as was hoped.

So, ironically, what the report actually shows is that the impact will be even worse, because so few people are moving away from the areas to be impacted, NOT as you claim, that Global warming is not happening.

except for one thing, this thread is not an attack on the entire organization. its a specific example of one instnace, namely, the UN global warming predictions for 2010. where do you get these delusions?
.

A grammar lesson. See, when you say "the UN global warming predictions for 2010" [are wrong] (or "UN Quietly Erase's it's Global Warming Predictions for 2010")

It means that the actualy global warming predictions are wrong, NOT just that their estimate of people's migratory response was off.

But I see you have now changed the title. Good job!

[BigBallinStalin]

Most Americans' wealth and income has increased over time.

Most people's wealth in terms of purchasing power has actually gone down, not up in the past decades. This is offset a little by cheaper advanced technology.

Purchasing power (as in the value of each dollar) has gone down, sure. But that doesn't change what I originally stated.

However, more important is that all of this is illusional because none of it really takes into reasonable account limited supplies of various substances-- minerals, arable soil, clean water, etc.

What is? and why

[Neoteny]

But I see you have now changed the title. Good job!

Phatscotty quietly changes thread title! Entirety of politics now in question!

[john9blue]

well i'm probably never going to change your mind about that regardless of what i do. i will usually contribute to a thread if i have something "new" to say, but people like you who have preconceived notions about me will hardly even care as long as i'm the person saying it.

and you say "centrist" like it's a bad thing, when have i ever bragged about being a centrist? lol

i'm not sure where you guys are getting this image of me being a stuck-up know-it-all... i will never start troll-responding to someone who wants to have a serious discussion (like you and many others with your worldview do). whatever label you have to give me to avoid the issues, though.

No, you're not going to change my mind about you or Phatscotty until you demonstrate an understanding that your efforts at debate in the past have been almost entirely based on distortion. You have given me no reason to respect your opinion, and your expectation of receiving that respect despite your history of saying stupid things is hilarious. I'm not dismissing you out of hand because I can't argue with your nonsense, I'm dismissing you out of hand because I'm tired of arguing with your nonsense. Stop distorting this into the lie that I'm unable to argue about global warming.

i'd be glad to explain any examples of what you perceived as "distortion" by me in the past. i don't do those things. you only disrespect my opinion because you start with the conclusion that i say stupid things, because i disagree with you. that's about as closed-minded as it gets.

:facepalm:

Of course it's closed-minded (though not as closed-minded as it gets), but that's ok. I'm not going to buy a house from an arsonist, and I'm not going to get my science from you or Phatscotty. That's how the world works. You guys have demonstrated that you don't have a clue (take pride in that, it's the only thing you've demonstrated). I don't understand why this is so confusing and offensive to you.

And, god, no, I do not want to hear your racist, self-serving nonsense again... I've heard enough.

lol wtf? okay so in the past i heard you say that white people are the supreme race. i won't bring it up though because i don't want to look at it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Aw, you two are so cute when you bicker.

[thegreekdog]

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.

No - in conclusion, climate change is not as big a problem (or as urgent a problem) as the United Nations originally thought. And to the extent someone did evacuate or change his or her lifestyle in a negative fashion because the United Nations has taken a "THIS IS SERIOUS AND URGENT" attitude towards climate change, the onus is on the United Nations to take responsibility.

The first five or six responses to the OP are just classic partisanship. Classic.