Global insecurity and refugee crisis linked to climate change - expert

But the earth is flat...

Incredible what passes as an intellectual these days.

WilliB, just thinking that myself. what a load of ## , and from a so called academic.

Greenpeace and the like and extremely deep pockets courtesy of multi-billion dollar tax-free foundations like Gates and Carnegie.

Ironically, Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace is a climate change "denier". Go figure.

Incredible what passes as an intellectual these days.

Yes, incredible. All the real intellectuals have a simpler, more business-friendly science. Just take it from Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee:

"God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

Yes, incredible. All the real intellectuals have a simpler, more business-friendly science.

Climate change is big business, it is a $100 billion per year industry. Each and every one of us is a customer of this industry, whether we agree with it or not, as it is funded by our tax dollars (usually deficit spent). The more you clamor that the polar bears are dying (when their population is actually increasing), and that arctic ice will disappear in five years (which it has failed to do), you can get your grants funded by a sympathetic government which is more than happy to give you other people's hard earned money (they of course make more than a little commission for administering the spending).

If the government spent $100 billion per year to fight global cooling, you could bet that the consensus of scientists would agree global cooling was occurring.

Climate change is real and those who are in denial now will reap what you sow. I am surprised at some comments above. You think it's climate fiction? Think again, mates. ****

Climate change is big business, it is a $100 billion per year industry.

Categorically false. That is a goal for 2020 set by the UN, and nowhere near realized. You also fail to mention the costs that humans inflict on their own economies through corporate greed.

If the government spent $100 billion per year to fight global cooling, you could bet that the consensus of scientists would agree global cooling was occurring.

That's one giant IF. And also an assumption that climate scientists are cashing in on doing phony research to support their findings. You really have a low regard for the integrity of scientists, don't you. Please remember, they are not politicians. They didn't get into their line of work to make money off of BS.

Since 1989, Jim Inhofe has received over $2.5 million from oil and gas industries and electric utilities. His #1 contributor has been Koch Industries. You know these guys, right?

I'd be interested in hearing some stats on climate scientists raking in that kind of money to do faked research that is peer reviewed by experts around the world.

Danny Bloom:

" Climate change is real "

Climate change is real, but has always existed. The idea that a) without human activity there would be no climate change, and b) politicians and UN can "fix" climate change with taxes money collection schemes like carbon trading is ludicrious. Fact is, we are burning fossil fuels because we need them for our modern civiliziation. If there was an viable alternative, companies would have jumped on that long ago. The idea that oil companies need to bribe people to use their product is beyond naive.

Sure, we can do without fossil fuels (on the assumption that they are the only factor in climate change) -- if we want to live like in pre-industrial times. Of course, there would have to be a lot fewer of us, too.

The idea that a) without human activity there would be no climate change

No one has claimed that. Scientists have pointed out that accelerated climate change is a result of human behaviours.

politicians and UN can "fix" climate change with taxes money collection schemes like carbon trading is ludicrious

Politicians and the UN can put together laws that can minimize the impact of humans on climate change.

Thinking otherwise is ridiculous, and maintaining the status quo will destroy our planet.

Strangeland:

" No one has claimed that. Scientists have pointed out that accelerated climate change is a result of human behaviours. "

All of that are hypotheses. There thousands of factors, including many human-caused (e.g. the UN itself is on record stating that cow farts have a bigger climate effect than CO2, yet I don´t see the UN asking us to become vegetarians...). To single out CO2 and then inventing schemes like "carbon trading" is clearly a political issue.

" Politicians and the UN can put together laws that can minimize the impact of humans on climate change. "

Oh really now. If politicians and the UN have such power, why don´t they outlaw wars, to start with? And since when does e.g. China care about whatever the UN legislates?

" Thinking otherwise is ridiculous, and maintaining the status quo will destroy our planet. "

No, thinking otherwise is quite realistic, and the planet will be there long after we have destroyed ourselfes -- but not with imaginary global warming.

All of that are hypotheses.

No, they are not. The scientific method is: hypothesize -> test -> conclude -> peer review. The science is peer reviewed. It's way beyond the hypothesis stage.

If you don't believe in the scientific method, you should stop getting in airplanes, riding in cars, and in fact, living in society, as it was all built on the scientific method.

Oh really now. If politicians and the UN have such power, why don´t they outlaw wars, to start with?

Any other false equivalencies you'd like to discuss?

And since when does e.g. China care about whatever the UN legislates?

China is already starting to work on it's pollution issues on its own. They should have done it years ago, but better late than never.

But that all said, the whole 'they aren't doing it, so I'm not going to either' puts you just as much to blame as them. Do you really want to lower yourself to China's level?

Although to be fair, if anything they'd be lowering themselves to your level, as the US is the biggest polluter on earth.

No, thinking otherwise is quite realistic, and the planet will be there long after we have destroyed ourselfes

Great logic. 'We'll all die, but the earth will remain'. How about we find a way that we can all live as well.

And who is funding these scientists? Is there influential motivation? Careful what your fed by global leaders. Follow the money trail.

sangetsu03: Climate change is big business, it is a $100 billion per year industry.

plasticmonkey: Categorically false. That is a goal for 2020 set by the UN, and nowhere near realized.

The USA Federal portion alone (federal budget allocated to climate change expenditures) was $22.2B in 2013.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf p. 5:

Table 1. Summary of Federal Climate Change Expenditures

And:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102313-676388-world-spends-billion-a-day-to-fight-climate-change.htm

... According to the Climate Policy Initiative, $359 billion was invested in 2012 to limit global warming. That's a nice pile of cash. But of course it wasn't enough to do the job. Media portal EurActiv.com reports that total was "barely half the $700 billion per year that the World Economic Forum has said is needed to tackle climate change." ...

BTW to sangetsu03, Moore's wikipedia page says: "Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian scientist and although he often claims to be, he is not a co-founder of Greenpeace."

The scientific method is: hypothesize - test - conclude - peer review.

I don't recall the "peer review" element being included when I learned about the scientific method. It seems an odd concept. I think providing a falsifiability condition was sometimes included. (e,g if you drop an apple and it falls upwards, then my theory of gravity is wrong). For understandable reasons, climate theories don't usually provide such conditions. But it also illustrates the uncertainties of climate science. I hope peer review is not intended to act as a surrogate for falsifiability. I always thought it was an editorial method to keep really bad papers out of journals.

“We are experiencing a surprising uptick in global insecurity… partially due to our inability to manage climate stress,”

In this case, everything is the fault of "climate change".

Didn't bother reading the article didja, BB? Yeah, pretty obvious...

Anyway, whether one agrees or not that there's an anthropogenic component to climate change isn't really relevant here. It's about how our adaptation strategies, "our inability to manage climate stress". Better strategies are and will be clearly necessary. Unless you reject that the climate is changing, it's just stupid to knock any discussion about how to manage the effects of climate change on global security just because you reject the notion that humans may be even partially responsible.

What else Sir? Climate change expert may have been affected by Climate change.

Al Gore has multi-million of dollar investment in renewal energy business. They don't want peoples know about Arctic sea Ice was expending since Al Gore was awarded with Nobel Peace Prize for making more money from Climate change campaign 7 - year ago.

By the way, I notice my dog Ai-chan climbing on my other dog Baby. It must be causing by climate change. Dear me, my poor dogs suffer too.

Perhaps ISIS and extreme muslim fundamentalists have something to do with it.

Or maybe all the hot air comming out of the White House.