Caravan!

[homersapien 11,382]

11 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Let us know when the Dems find those 50,000 climate refugees.

non sequitur

[johnnyAU 3,633]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

non sequitur

Not really. The thread mentioned media/politicians over hyping situations into manufactured "crises". Sensational claims of "50 million climate refugees by 2010" are exactly that type of false alarmism. 

[Grumps 3,704]

Are the number of people in the caravan getting bigger or smaller? Is is possible that Trump's response to the CARAVAN! is causing many of the illegal immigrants to go back to their homes?

[AUDub 11,151]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

Are the number of people in the caravan getting bigger or smaller? Is is possible that Trump's response to the CARAVAN! is causing many of the illegal immigrants to go back to their homes?

Come on, Grumps. The coverage was breathless up until Tuesday for some oddball reason. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

Come on, Grumps. The coverage was breathless up until Tuesday for some oddball reason. 

Oddball? I think it was called a midterm election for my elementary students. 

So, just scanned the front page of CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Guess who mentions caravan? 

Sheeple. So sad.

[Grumps 3,704]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

Come on, Grumps. The coverage was breathless up until Tuesday for some oddball reason. 

Don't get me wrong, I ABSOLUTELY think that the R's were using the caravan to try to help them win their midterm elections. I also think that the D's were doing the same thing. My point is that it is possible that the coverage of the caravan has decreased because the size of the caravans has decreased. Further, it is possible that the size of the caravans has decreased because of the rhetoric from the White House.

[alexava 6,973]

The Koch brothers stopped funding the caravan 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

8 minutes ago, alexava said:

The Koch brothers stopped funding the caravan 

When you're simple and you know it. Clap your hands Alex! 

[alexava 6,973]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

When you're simple and you know it. Clap your hands Alex! 

Fight fire with fire 🔥 

[homersapien 11,382]

9 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Not really. The thread mentioned media/politicians over hyping situations into manufactured "crises". Sensational claims of "50 million climate refugees by 2010" are exactly that type of false alarmism. 

Not sure about that number, and it should probably be described as climate change migration, but it will happen. 

(Where did you see that anyway?)

 

[johnnyAU 3,633]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Not sure about that number, and it should probably be described as climate change migration, but it will happen. 

(Where did you see that anyway?)

 

Sure it will.  

 

2005 UN report

[homersapien 11,382]

11 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Sure it will.  

 

2005 UN report

Could you please provide the citation?  I can't find it.

[johnnyAU 3,633]

41 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Could you please provide the citation?  I can't find it.

Fifty million climate refugees by 2010. Today we find a world of asymmetric development, unsustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and urban poverty. There is general agreement about the current global environmental and development crisis. It is also known that the consequences of these global changes have the most devastating impacts on the poorest, who historically have had limited entitlements and opportunities for growth.

Sources

Norman Myers, ‘Environmental refugees, An emergent security issue’, 13. Economic forum, Prague, OSCE, May 2005 ; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 ; Liser, 2007.   It came with a map. See attached. It was subsequently removed from the website. Since the embarrassment of the prediction not coming true, the site then moved the goalposts to 2020, and of course that isn't looking too promising either.  There are other estimates now further out, 200 million climate refugees by 2050. There are several articles that reference the source and predictions. You can find those pretty easily.

[homersapien 11,382]

25 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Fifty million climate refugees by 2010. Today we find a world of asymmetric development, unsustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and urban poverty. There is general agreement about the current global environmental and development crisis. It is also known that the consequences of these global changes have the most devastating impacts on the poorest, who historically have had limited entitlements and opportunities for growth.

Sources

Norman Myers, ‘Environmental refugees, An emergent security issue’, 13. Economic forum, Prague, OSCE, May 2005 ; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 ; Liser, 2007.   It came with a map. See attached. It was subsequently removed from the website. Since the embarrassment of the prediction not coming true, the site then moved the goalposts to 2020, and of course that isn't looking too promising either.  There are other estimates now further out, 200 million climate refugees by 2050. There are several articles that reference the source and predictions. You can find those pretty easily.

Not to quibble, but the first reference you show is not the UN, the OSCE is a European human rights and democracy organization.  And the second is not a direct reference, it's a secondary one.  Do you have links to either?

Regardless, there will be major migration shifts as global warming progresses beyond an average of 2 degrees.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/02/climate-change-will-create-worlds-biggest-refugee-crisis

Tens of millions of people will be forced from their homes by climate change in the next decade, creating the biggest refugee crisis the world has ever seen, according to a new report.

Senior US military and security experts have told the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) study that the number of climate refugees will dwarf those that have fled the Syrian conflict, bringing huge challenges to Europe.

“If Europe thinks they have a problem with migration today … wait 20 years,” said retired US military corps brigadier general Stephen Cheney. “See what happens when climate change drives people out of Africa – the Sahel [sub-Saharan area] especially – and we’re talking now not just one or two million, but 10 or 20 [million]. They are not going to south Africa, they are going across the Mediterranean.”

The study published on Thursday calls on governments to agree a new legal framework to protect climate refugees and, ahead of next week’s climate summit in Germany, urges leaders to do more to implement the targets set out in the Paris climate agreement.

Sir David King, the former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, told the EJF: “What we are talking about here is an existential threat to our civilisation in the longer term. In the short term, it carries all sorts of risks as well and it requires a human response on a scale that has never been achieved before.”

 

Also:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/climate-change-migrants-refugees-european-union-environment/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/climate-change-is-going-to-drive-thousands-of-refugees-to-cooler-countries

https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/hong-kong/article/2165252/climate-change-must-be-dealt-it-unleashes-millions

[johnnyAU 3,633]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not to quibble, but the first reference you show is not the UN, the OSCE is a European human rights and democracy organization.  And the second is not a direct reference, it's a secondary one.  Do you have links to either?

Regardless, there will be major migration shifts as global warming progresses beyond an average of 2 degrees.

The prediction and map itself were from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html

I also said you could look it up yourself. I think you are just being lazy.

[homersapien 11,382]

5 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

The prediction and map itself were from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html

I also said you could look it up yourself. I think you are just being lazy.

No actually I looked at about a half dozen articles without finding it, using UN global warming migration change.

And It sounds to me like you cherry-picked one prediction out of many to emphasis global warming is not going to produce the global crisis it undoubtedly will.  Personally, I don't think the deniers are going to come around until about 2050.

[johnnyAU 3,633]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No actually I looked at about a half dozen articles without finding it, using UN global warming migration change.

And It sounds to me like you cherry-picked one prediction out of many to emphasis global warming is not going to produce the global crisis it undoubtedly will.  Personally, I don't think the deniers are going to come around until about 2050.

Those were literally the 1st two hits from the Google search on "50 million climate refugees by 2010". The 3rd one is from BBC.  There is no excuse for being lazy.

13 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Regardless, there will be major migration shifts as global warming progresses beyond an average of 2 degrees.

You have yet to learn the lessons of changing the vocabulary, as done by many of the early alarmists. WILL here should be changed to MAY or POSSIBLY. It does seem you have figured out that changing the goal posts to further out helps with bogus predictions. Note that many have predictions out beyond 2100 now.  Reality has a way of forcing that to happen when it neglects to comply with political narratives. 

[homersapien 11,382]

52 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Those were literally the 1st two hits from the Google search on "50 million climate refugees by 2010". The 3rd one is from BBC.  There is no excuse for being lazy.

You have yet to learn the lessons of changing the vocabulary, as done by many of the early alarmists. WILL here should be changed to MAY or POSSIBLY. It does seem you have figured out that changing the goal posts to further out helps with bogus predictions. Note that many have predictions out beyond 2100 now.  Reality has a way of forcing that to happen when it neglects to comply with political narratives. 

I searched "UN climate change refugees".  There was no mention of it. 

And apparently, the prediction wasn't derived from UN-sponsored research. It came from one professor:

"Professor of migration and refugee law at the University of NSW Jane McAdam, who has followed the controversy, said the original figure of 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010 derived from questionable calculations by the Oxford University academic Norman Myers."

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/world-still-waiting-for-50-million-climate-refugees-by-2010/news-story/79d31565781d70b566861d306c9b893e

 

And I have not set any "goal posts".  You have.  I have no idea how many refugees will be created over the next 30 years.  At this point, trying to make accurate predictions of that is impossible.  Just as it is impossible to say conclusively that the recent increase of powerful hurricanes is due to climate change.

Science cannot make such precise individual predictions, it can only predict general trends.  There are already climate change refugees and there will be more as the effects of climate change manifest themselves.

And climate change is more than just a "political narrative".  It is reality, a scientific reality.   Cherry-picking one overly pessimistic prediction made by one professor 13 years ago doesn't change that.

I do agree with your statements about the political hazards of such specific prediction, as do many experts in the field:

"Professor McAdam said there was no such thing as a "climate refugee", according to international treaties, and attempts to quantify the number of people forced to move by climate change were essentially pointless because the reasons for migration were always more complex.

"If we can't count up 50 million people displaced by climate change today then it looks like a non-issue," she said.

Professor of Geography at the University of Melbourne Jon Barnett agreed. "I think it's very difficult to predict any flows of migrants because of climate change at any time in the future," he said."

(op. cit.)

 

 

[homersapien 11,382]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

You have yet to learn the lessons of changing the vocabulary, as done by many of the early alarmists. WILL here should be changed to MAY or POSSIBLY. It does seem you have figured out that changing the goal posts to further out helps with bogus predictions. Note that many have predictions out beyond 2100 now.  Reality has a way of forcing that to happen when it neglects to comply with political narratives. 

No that's wrong, at least in a general sense.  "Will" means "will".  There is no doubt that climate change will have significant impacts on populations, depending on where they are located.  There's no "may" to it. 

One can argue all they want about the magnitude and timing of these changes, but to discount their inevitability is to stick your head in the sand.

 

[johnnyAU 3,633]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And climate change is more than just a "political narrative".  It is reality, a scientific reality

Climate changes themselves aren't the issue. The main drivers for the changes are.

However, the whole point of this thread tangent was creating ideological alarmism in order to effect current policies or voting tendencies. It's not new to politics. Al Gore (A political carnival barker) and even Prince Charles have forayed into the bogus prediction arena with mythical "tipping points". The famous "100 months" BS from the latter also passed some time back with little fanfare.

As reality contines to refuse to comply with the narrative, the projections get further into the future. Soon it won't be "your kids and grankids" but their kids and grandkids. 

[homersapien 11,382]

28 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Climate changes themselves aren't the issue. The main drivers for the changes are.

However, the whole point of this thread tangent was creating ideological alarmism in order to effect current policies or voting tendencies. It's not new to politics. Al Gore (A political carnival barker) and even Prince Charles have forayed into the bogus prediction arena with mythical "tipping points". The famous "100 months" BS from the latter also passed some time back with little fanfare.

As reality contines to refuse to comply with the narrative, the projections get further into the future. Soon it won't be "your kids and grankids" but their kids and grandkids. 

Ironically,  you are the one who used an ill-advised climate change prediction in the service of "ideological alarmism".  No one on this forum has claimed climate change is the motivator behind the immigrant "caravan".

The main driver of immigrants seeking asylum is the lack of rule-of-law in the countries from which they come.

And cutting foreign aid to these countries is a counter-productive policy. It's the exact opposite of what we should be doing, which is address the problem at its source.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/18/politics/caravan-foreign-aid/index.html

Trump is threatening foreign aid over the new migrant caravan. Here's what's at stake.

[johnnyAU 3,633]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No one on this forum has claimed climate change is the motivator behind the immigrant "caravan".

And I didn't claim they did...nor do I claim that it is.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

And I didn't claim they did...nor do I claim that it is.

That's just a homer dodge when he has lost.

 

[homersapien 11,382]

6 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

That's just a homer dodge when he has lost.

 

PT the lap dog.

 

[TitanTiger 20,488]

On 11/10/2018 at 8:21 AM, Grumps said:

Are the number of people in the caravan getting bigger or smaller? Is is possible that Trump's response to the CARAVAN! is causing many of the illegal immigrants to go back to their homes?

I love this use of the term "illegal immigrant."  They haven't even reached the border.  How are they "illegal?"  And if they present themselves for asylum, as required by US asylum law, how would they then be illegal?