Conquer Club

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.

khazalid wrote:'could' being the operative word, no?

Metsfanmax wrote: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.

Metsfanmax wrote: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 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

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

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

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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.

Phatscotty wrote: but, they were wrong here, weren't they?

GreecePwns wrote: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!

natty_dread wrote: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.

GreecePwns wrote: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.

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