I can read well enough to recognise that you're awkwardly shifting away from your original position ("the situation isn't on track to get worse, scientists aren't clear, its all fine") onto one that's much more nebulous ("a few places might get a bit better even if the risk overall increases")
Climate change is going to take centuries to potentially force serious global migration. People relocate themselves within a generation.
That's odd, considering all those posts you made expressing them. "A general rise is counterfactual", "Scientists are unclear", "it is fine", etc etc.
Some estimates say that climate change might drive around a billion people to migrate within our lifetimes. Sure, that might be a high end figure, but even so there is a substantial risk it will still be very large numbers of people. Overwhelmingly this is likely to involve poor people who had almost nothing losing even the little they had.
And right back to catastrophizing.
Your conclusions aren't based on the sources you post, the reasoning between the two is either non-existent or faulty, and me pointing that out doesn't turn me into whatever position you feel like arguing against.
This is not catastrophising. These are the sorts of things your government, mine, and many others are looking at right now. They are doing so because it is the job of governments to need to plan and prepare for future events, and widespread movement of people due to climate is a substantial likelihood. The hope is that most of it will be internal (i.e. from one part of a country to another), but even so everyone in the field knows perfectly well that this sort of disruption will contribute heavily to increased international migration too. Our governments will likely need to do something, even if that's just pumping aid to affected countries to try to help manage the problem (which is to say, keep it away from our borders).
All sources provided so far, including yours, have attested that the overall risk of wildfire will increase with climate change. Which was exactly my conclusion. And exactly what you argued against. You're not going to get around that.
This post is nearly the opposite in tone of your previous one. You went from saying a billion poor people will need to move and nobody will help them all the way to saying most of that movement is intranational and our governments are already planning to help them wherever they happen to be across the world. The first one is catastrophizing, the second is reasonable.
You're very willfully never going to understand this.
This is a lie. You're switching 'might' for 'will' and stripping all nuance to draw a false comparison. Its the same trick you tried to pull before, when you pretended the scientists were just giving 'might' statements, by snipping that single one out of context-- and ignoring the dozens of other 'will' and 'high confidence' statements.
Every time you're directly confronted with your own words and those of the sources that contradict you, the response is one of these insubstantial one-liners. I wonder why?
Also worth mentioning the Dustbowl here again. Americans didn't want to deal with refugees from other parts of America, massive problems there.
I fear the perceived inconsistency is merely you not really thinking through what all of this means, which I suppose is understandable given your apparent lack of familiarity with the topic.
Every time you "confront my words", you make them up. Every time you present some source, you exaggerate their claims.
The entire western hemisphere is populated by a billion people who relocated on the time scale you're describing with dramatically less means to do so than what we have now. I don't imagine you'd claim either those people or the places they left behind are terribly worse off for it.
That 1 billion did not relocate; those are merely the descendants of people that did; a vastly lower number. And immigration to the Americas involve 531 years in total; a much larger timescale. And a significant part of the immigration was caused by the fact that land and opportunities were plentiful at the arriving locations so immigration was actively encouraged; native lands becoming uninhabitable does not create those circumstances.
I don't think it hurts the point terribly if its hundreds of millions instead of a billion.
You're actually starting your timeline with Columbus? Something like 50,000,000 moved to the US in a century from the early 1800s to the early 1900s (and that's just the US, there's plenty of of countries full of immigrants that people were going to). A century is the timescale most climate change projections operate in.
How much do you know abut the history of Ireland?
This is a lie. I've presented direct unedited quotes from both you and the sources. And they flatly contradict one another.
So fifty million. EDIT: As @Agema points out below, actually more like 28 million.
Statistics seem to suggest that migration to the USA (from Europe) was under 3 million 1800-1850, and ~25 million 1850-1930. So that's a lot less than 50 million. Nor does this take into account that North America had extremely low population density and a vast amount of opportunity in terms of unclaimed* and undeveloped land that could be readily turned to agriculture and industry. That's why people emigrated to it.
Every time you insist this, your inability to understand nuance is displayed all over again.
A billion is roughly the population of the western hemisphere, in case you didn't recognize that. The majority of those people are here within a handful of generations.
Does America still have that in your estimation?
