This is the sad, sad tale of the 50 million global warming refugees that the UN warned us about. Oh, it isn’t sad because there are any 50 million refugees, it’s sad because people believed that there were going to be 50,000 refugees due to global warming. After all, these purported refugees never materialized.
Back in 2005 the U.N. had determined that by 2010 there would be some 50 million refugees thrown out of their homes because of the ravages of globaloney. As Aaron Worthington says, that prediction came up short of the mark “by only around 50 million.” When the UN was at the height of its great global warming scam, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that by 2010 there would be 50 million people driven from their homes as a result of globaloney.
With great fanfare UNEP posted on its webpage a startling map showing all the regions on earth that would be swallowed up Irwin Allen-like by that disastrous global warming. And, dang it, it’s ALL our fault.
UNEP was sure of 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.
Notice all the BS assumptions in that pile of manure? There is “general agreement,” so, gosh, it must be TRUE! And, boy, them there poor people don’t have enough “entitlements” (read socialist redistributionist government mandates) so they just can’t ever get ahead.
Then the UN told us sonorously that if we only got rid of capitalism, threw away our cars, planes, and air conditioners, and went back to partying like it’s 1799, why everything would be great again. They could prove it, you see. They have a map.
Or do they?
Well, it’s 2010 and guess what? Not only did the refugees due to global warming disappear on the UN, but now even the map has disappeared. The UN has scrubbed the entire webpage. Globaloney right down the memory hole.
So, I think we’ve at last discovered the real way to fix global warming? Just erase it from the Internet tubuals. There. “Problem” solved!









April 15th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Cool map that almost never was! It’s too bad the UN estimates didn’t come true as it would have washed Washington away. NYC, too!
April 15th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
“It’s too bad the UN estimates didn’t come true as it would have washed Washington away. NYC, too!”
I agree Andy. Whenever I hear theories about terrorists already having nukes in liberal bastions such as NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago or Washington D.C. I automatically imagine New York State, Illinois or California as red states.
Almost makes you want to root for the other side.
April 15th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
I had this debate 4 years ago.
The UN can erase their sht but not mine.
“Observe what Dr. Kevin Trenberth himself says in his Rocky Mountains News response: “Gore’s statement that ice-sheets melting in Greenland or the West Antarctic would raise sea level by 20 feet is correct, although it was misleading that he did not put a time-frame on this.”
Ask yourself: why didn’t Gore put a time-frame on it?
The answer: a twenty foot increase would, all things remaining equal, take millennia.
As Dr. Trenberth himself once stated: “… temperatures would have to remain 5.5 degrees Celsius higher than today’s for several millennia before the Greenland ice sheet would lose even half of its ice. The Greenland ice sheet has in fact recently thickened by 2 inches per year – a total of 20 inches in 10 years” (Johannesen et al., 2005).
April 15th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
“The Greenland ice sheet has in fact recently thickened by 2 inches per year…”
This, of course, is why I avoid vacationing in Greenland.
April 15th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Not to overwhelm the thread, but I will anyway
As I said, I had this debate years ago and dug up so much fear mongered crap, well…here
In 1980, the Global 2000 report predicted that “at least 500,000 to 600,000 species” would become extinct in the next twenty years. We now know that this was not only totally inaccurate, but had absolutely no factual basis to begin with. It was pure guess work, with a very specific agenda. “In the history of the planet earth, species have always come into and gone out of existence. The existing data on the observed rates of species extinction are fatuously incongruous with conservationist claims, as, in 1992, even the sympathetic World Conservation Monitoring Centre conceded.” Quoting their words: “In fact, these and other data indicate that the number of recorded extinctions for both plants and animals is very small….” (Heygood and Stuart 1992 p. 93.)
Here’s a little more (please note the dates):
“I take this opportunity to express my opinion in the strongest terms, that the amazing exhibition of oil which has characterized the last twenty, and will probably characterize the next ten or twenty years, is nevertheless, not only geologically but historically, a temporary and vanishing phenomenon—one which young men will live to see come to its natural end” (1886, J.P. Lesley, state geologist of Pennsylvania).
“There is little or no chance for more oil in California” (1886, U.S. Geological Survey).
“There is little or no chance for more oil in Kansas and Texas” (1891, U.S. Geological Survey).
“Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, perhaps a ten-year supply” (1914, U.S. Bureau of Mines).
“Reserves to last only thirteen years” (1939, Department of the Interior).
“Reserves to last thirteen years” (1951, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Division).
“We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade” (Former President Jimmy Carter speaking in 1978 to the entire world).
“At the present rate of use, it is estimated that coal reserves will last 200 more years. Petroleum may run out in 20 to 30 years, and natural gas may last only another 70 years” (1980, Merrill high school textbook Science Connections).
“At the current rate of consumption, some scientists estimate that the world’s known supplies of oil … will be used up within your lifetime” (1993, The United States and its People).
“The supply of fossil fuels is being used up at an alarming rate. Governments must help save our fossil fuel supply by passing laws limiting their use” (1993, Glenco textbook Biology, An Everyday Experience).
(Give notice to that last sentence.)
Quotes like these could fill a thousand pages easily. Here, just for the hell of it, are a couple more:
The Sierra Club website has this resolution: “State and federal laws should be changed to encourage small families and discourage large families.”
(Government bureaucrats, in other words, should tell us how many children we are allowed to have. As they do in Communist China, for instance. Let it also be noted, however, that this is coming from a group whose founder, Mr. John Muir, wrote in 1894 that the Indians of Yosemite Valley were “mostly ugly, and some of them altogether hideous.” They “seemed to have no right place in the landscape,” and they disturbed his “solemn calm.”)
“The technique is to introduce legislation to achieve some vague, positive-sounding generality, such as ‘worker safety’ or ‘environmental protection’—things no politician will want to go on record voting against. When the legislation is passed and a new regulatory agency is created to enforce it, that’s when the actual decisions are made about what specific restrictions will be imposed and which lands will be removed from human use. Governmental power is passed down to an army of minor bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people and only vaguely accountable to Congress and the president.
“Consider that federal regulatory agencies make thousands of rulings each year, adding about 80,000 pages annually to the Federal Register. Do you think Congress can exercise ‘oversight’ by debating all 80,000 pages of these regulations? Do you think the president, his advisors and his cabinet officers can consider and personally approve all of these decrees? Of course not. By its nature, the federal decree-issuing apparatus cannot be controlled, and it has only one tendency: to impose more regulations and, by filling the federal register with such restrictions, to make private activities like logging grind to a halt.
“These campaigns are proof of the greens’ real motives. They want to stop development and keep the Third World in a state of poverty—while they work to bring the same ideal of poverty to industrialized nations. Most environmentalists embrace this goal, but few dare to admit it openly—so they peddle a variety of ruses to hide their meaning, ranging from ‘sustainable development’ to ‘shrinkth,’ a term suggested by the editor of Earth Island Journal as a less negative-sounding ‘antonym for growth’.”
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is …” Mr. Albert Gore, ladies and gentleman, Grist magazine.
This little set of quotations was culled quickly and more or less at random but doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface. If you’d like more, let me know. I have notes full of them.
And so you would have us all just go along with the latest in envirommental propaganda because you can’t undestand why many of us think it just more, as you say, “doom and gloom”?
Come, now. It hardly takes a genius to learn something vital from so much outright disembling bullsht.
April 16th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Damnation does not stem from prophecies of doom delayed. God’s judgment for the follies of man is ever nigh.
Read the Book of Jonah.
April 16th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Klo…
The guy on the soap box with bible in his hand screaming “THE END IS NEAR” has been there for 2000 years.
Besides, “Global Warming” is its own religion.
Leave God out of it