UN backing away from climate change perdictions... LOL!
 

I know that it's wrong to challenge peoples religious faith, but I can't help but tweak things once in a while...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...757713,00.html


"


Feared Migration Hasn't Happened
UN Embarrassed by Forecast on Climate Refugees

By Axel Bojanowski

REUTERS

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.
Info
For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol.

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.

But now the UN is distancing itself from the forecast: "It is not a UNEP prediction," a UNEP spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE. The forecast has since been removed from UNEP's website.

Official statistics show that the population in areas threatened by global warming is actually rising. The expected environmental disasters have yet to materialize.

In October 2005, UNU said: "Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and extend support to this new category of 'refugee.'"

It added that "such problems as sea level rise, expanding deserts and catastrophic weather-induced flooding have already contributed to large permanent migrations and could eventually displace hundreds of millions."

In 2008, Srgjan Kerim, president of the UN General Assembly, said it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. A UNEP web page showed a map of regions where people were likely to be displaced by the ravages of global warming. It has recently been taken offline but is still visible in a Google cache.

'What Happened to the Climate Refugees?'

The UNEP spokesman said the map had been produced for a newspaper "based on various sources." He said the map had been taken off the UNEP website "because it was causing confusion and making some journalists think UNEP was the source of such forecasts."

Given the UN's warnings of a tide of environmental refugees, the Asian Correspondent, a news and comment website, published an article this month titled "What Happened to the Climate Refugees?"

____________

"The same applies to other nations that were classified as particularly endangered on the UNEP map of the world, such as Bangladesh, the Cook Islands and Western Sahara. In these countries and others, the population numbers have increased, according to official data. Even the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu still has its 10,000 inhabitants, even though their relocation had already been planned. The reason may be that many low-lying Pacific islands are actually increasing in size despite the rise in ocean levels, because of a build-up caused by coral debris eroded from reefs and deposited on the islands by storms and sea currents. "

_____________

"Meanwhile a new forecast is doing the rounds. At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in February, Cristina Tirado, an environment researcher at the University of California in Los Angeles, warned of 50 million environmental refugees in the future. That figure was a UN projection she said -- for 2020."





.

suppose several +8 earthquakes don't count as climate refugees eh?

Earthquakes=climate? Not even to the UN (also known as the High Temple to the faith of global warming), no


.

No, since the cause, numbers, and the regions affected are all different.

i would assume the connection hasn't been made on the basis that they can't materially correlate the two, but the realities very well exist, and i behoove anyone here to prove that the increased frequencies of earthquakes are NOT connected to climate change

seems oddly coincidental no?

furthermore, whether or not it is connected, doesn't really take away from the fact that over 50 Million have been displaced during that time for one reason or another

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquak...1990_stats.php

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquak...1995_stats.php

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquak...2000_stats.php

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquak...2005_stats.php

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquak...2010_stats.php

No I don't see earthquakes being related.

15 years?

the point is we really have either no idea or good guesses on how any of this 'earth' stuff works

most of the data we do have is clouded by people 'not wanting things to be the way they are'

cavemen and 'cave housewives' for example; perception is everything

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What is your point? That we are on a climb in stronger earthquakes?

If you go back further, there is always spells of changes in climate, and plate shifts. Right now it is at a rise and it will fall again.

I love how the so called scientists all agreed on the consensus that there would be massive global cooling in the 80's. Then in the 90s the consensus was that there was global warming.
In the 2000s they had to call it climatechange and even all predictions they ranted about that theory where they all agreed on are proving to be a conspiracy theory's by now.

what? a connection between climate and plate tectonic shifts?

nooo, that be crazy yo!

:upsidedow

so funny they did a paper on it

http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/pap...cs&climate.pdf

That's 20 years of data. Which admittedly isn't much, but it's much better than your assumptions that have nothing behind them. You state that we are having more earthquakes. Where?

As of late they have been hitting more population dense areas. Guess what? We have 7 billion people in the world.

touche there sly, what assumptions have i made exactly?

that cutting hairs on what we're calling refugees is mildly uncouth? cause if you answered that you'd be 100% correct

Here you go Richard... assumptions.

By the way, you have the proof thing backwards. That's not how science works.

here's a paper on bestiality. big deal

http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/470/Paraphilia.html

that's not an assumption, that is a studied 'idea' for lack of a better word, regardless of how much 12clicks wants to post links studying bestiality.

my overall point, i apologize, is that there isn't going to be 'specific climate change' refugees, they'd be categorized as something else

be it earthquakes, wars etc

More republican shills posting on porn messagebaords? what's next jews posting on nazi message boards? have you done that yet sperbonzo or is that on your agenda for later?

Hey Richard, in case you are being serious, climate affects the surface of the earth, which is only a small part of the earth as a whole. Tectonic activity, which is the motivator or earthquakes, has very little to do with surface temperature.

earthquakes? really? So co2 molecules in the atmosphere now somehow have the ability to move tectonic plates? :)

Earthquakes happen all the time. Only newsworthy when they kill someone.

where you hear that? from my understanding the guy who came up with the idea of tectonic plates stated there was fundamental connections between the climate and changing distribution of continents and oceans.

again, my overall, obviously vague, point was it is pretty much scientifically impossible to call any refugee a 'climate change' refugee at this point in time

I'm not a republican, I have plenty of issues with what they do. I'm a constitutional libertarian, and politics have nothing to do with the UN looking silly over doomsday predictions that have not come true.



.

Hey loser. Still pretending to be in our business, eh?

[QUOTE=_Richard_;18074000]from my understanding the guy who came up with the idea of tectonic plates stated there was fundamental connections between the climate and changing distribution of continents and oceans.
/QUOTE]

shifting tectonic plates > causes earthquakes/volcanic eruptions etc

earthquakes can release gas bubbles that are trapped beneath the surface of the earth and those gass bubbles can kill people, animals, plant life.

volcanic eruptions can release tons of ash in the atmosphere and influence the amount of sunlight gets through.

etc etc.

cause = tectonic activity.
effect = damage on the surface of the earth.

The opposite however isn't true, activity on the surface of the earth does not cause tectonic plates to shift...

If a car crashes into a bunch of people, those people will most likely die.
If a bunch of people die, it does not necessarily mean a car crashed into them or that a car will crash because a bunch of people died.

if an asteroid hits the earth and it causes an earthquake which it pretty much is guaranteed to do it means something on the surface caused an earthquake oh zing

but in all seriousness who cares if they were wrong? its not like the UN is worth anything anymore or anyone abides by what they say

we have the UN forming resolutions against countries that ALLOW inspectors in and the same UN body ignoring countries that DON'T ALLOW inspectors in and have illegal nuclear weapons

the UN is useless

so you're saying that more seawater wouldn't have an affect on tectonic plates?

Seismic activity is not increasing (and tectonic plates are not accelerating).

It's a matter of perception and coincidence that huge earthquakes seem to have become more frequent over recent years:
1 because their impact on society has risen as vulnerable cities have mushroomed and become more fragile
2 because of the rarity of gigantic earthquakes and their tendency to cluster for statistical reasons and nothing more.

I don't think so (water pressure is minimal compared to lithostatic pressure). Depends on the faults tought, perhaps the superficial ones would be affected.

Nice to know there are highly qualified geologists on GFY to argue the underlying causes of earthquakes.

you would be wrong! the ocean crust is a lot thinner, therefore less stable, and the increased pressure of say, all the melt water running into the ocean, would produce subduction earthquakes based solely on the idea of 'ballast'

you can see examples of this, starting from scientists warning about increased water weight seen by the three gorges dam, and another, chinese, dam that cause a lot of damage from my understanding

there was studies 'started', from my understanding, around 07 but not so sure what happened to those.. chinese quake hit in 08 and that's a direct example of what i am talking about

SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!

http://jasonschaeffer.files.wordpres...an-iceburg.gif

Oh wait.

If the Eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 had happened 120 years later (the tiniest blink of an eye geologically speaking)... The followers of the Global Warming religion would be blaming it on "climate Change"


.:2 cents:

We should send our qualified GFY experts to the UN ...

Haha, so human carbon emissions now causes the moving of tectonic plates.

I suppose if we bay trillions in carbon tax then the plates will stop moving?

the UN is not what it used to be tsk tsk tsk

Sea level change is about 5mm per year, but those deep ocean trenches where the plates join are at depths measured in miles. Percentage change? not fricking much. If the earth's crust is that that, err un-crusty, then we're in deep trouble.

Here's an idea; How about pumping all that nasty CO2 into actual greenhouses, so plants can grow quicker/bigger? Which they do in high CO2 environments. (But you do have to add lots of dihydrogen monoxide)

The precautionary principal isn't a zero sum game either. How many people DIED in Australia last year because what they had was expensive desalination plants when what they needed was cheap damns.

Instead, I'll carry on worrying about where all the heavy metals go from all the batteries we throw away.

In our food :Oh crap