Climate Nearing “Point of No Return”

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,535
5,982
118
Country
United Kingdom
I'm sorry that you don't know how to read.
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")

...and using smug little one-liners like the above to unsuccessfully camouflage that shift.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
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")

...and using smug little one-liners like the above to unsuccessfully camouflage that shift.
Neither of those have been my position at any point.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
I can't help but point out that the "climate winners" are mostly places where the terrain likely to experience increased habitability is barely-populated tundra.

In other words, to all intents and purposes, everyone loses: because substantially no-one lives in the places due to improve most. And it's not like the mass population movement (possibly billions) required to exploit these areas, people fleeing areas going downhill, is going to be a problem-free experience. It's most likely going to be a slow if substantial humanitarian, economic, and political trauma.
Climate change is going to take centuries to potentially force serious global migration. People relocate themselves within a generation.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,807
6,083
118
Climate change is going to take centuries to potentially force serious global migration. People relocate themselves within a generation.
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.

After that, you just stop to take a look at the rhetoric surrounding migrants in the USA and Europe currently, such as that from your own party. It's not pretty. This should give you some inkling of the way things might go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
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.

After that, you just stop to take a look at the rhetoric surrounding migrants in the USA and Europe currently, such as that from your own party. It's not pretty. This should give you some inkling of the way things might go.
And right back to catastrophizing.
That's odd, considering all those posts you made expressing them. "A general rise is counterfactual", "Scientists are unclear", "it is fine", etc etc.
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.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,807
6,083
118
And right back to catastrophizing.
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).

Ideally we'd be making oil companies and shareholders pay, but we all know by now that their profits are sacrosanct.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,535
5,982
118
Country
United Kingdom
Your conclusions aren't based on the sources you post, the reasoning between the two is either non-existent or faulty [...]
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.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
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).

Ideally we'd be making oil companies and shareholders pay, but we all know by now that their profits are sacrosanct.
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.
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.
You're very willfully never going to understand this.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,535
5,982
118
Country
United Kingdom
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 [...]
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.

'Will' and 'might' just switch places as is most convenient, apparently! Look at that!

You're very willfully never going to understand this.
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,807
6,083
118
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.
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.

The mass displacement of hundreds of millions - billions is severe whether intra- or international. We are not talking about people just moving to get a better job. This is places becoming uninhabitable, economically barren: both people losing what little they had and becoming destitute, and the loss of productive land. This is why models also project a loss of global GDP up to 20% by 2050. Contextually, that's about 5-10 years annual GDP growth, so the global economy will continue to grow. But it represents very considerable loss of economic activity in parts of the world, for which there will be a substantial human cost.

And yes, there will be planning to help. But to give you an idea what this means, consider that just because the British had a plan to cope with Germany bombing much of south and central England in the early 1940s, it didn't mean that bombing didn't cause a lot of problems.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
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?
Every time you "confront my words", you make them up. Every time you present some source, you exaggerate their claims.
The mass displacement of hundreds of millions - billions is severe whether intra- or international.
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.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,526
761
118
Country
Sweden
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.

There's so much wrong with this post that I suspect I might have misunderstood it.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,802
709
118
You probably would have a better comparison in the Migration period where whole populations moved. But even that is off severely due to how different modern times are.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
That 1 billion did not relocate; those are merely the descendants of people that did; a vastly lower number.
I don't think it hurts the point terribly if its hundreds of millions instead of a billion.
And immigration to the Americas involve 531 years in total; a much larger timescale.
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.
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.
How much do you know abut the history of Ireland?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,535
5,982
118
Country
United Kingdom
Every time you "confront my words", you make them up. Every time you present some source, you exaggerate their claims.
This is a lie. I've presented direct unedited quotes from both you and the sources. And they flatly contradict one another.

Something like 50,000,000 moved to the US in a century from the early 1800s to the early 1900s
So fifty million. EDIT: As @Agema points out below, actually more like 28 million.

If we assume the very smallest number that constitutes 'hundreds of millions', It would be 4 times as many as relocated to the US during that century (or almost 8 times as many for ~28m)

Or if we go for a billion, it would be 20 times as many (EDIT: or ~37x for 28m)

And in the 1800s, the people are moving from areas that are still habitable. Moving to a continent that is (before their arrival) very sparsely populated. And even then, their relocation caused enormous suffering and upheaval for the native population. But with climate change, we're talking about forced displacement from newly uninhabitable areas, into places that are already much more densely populated, and on a scale of magnitude 4-37+ times greater.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,807
6,083
118
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.
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.

It is nothing like millions dislocated from the places where they had lives and work to places already developed that likely have very few opportunities because the land is already owned, apportioned and exploited. And of course the immigrants to the USA faced substantial nativist** movements, racism and discrimination.

* The native Americans might of course beg to differ, but who in power gave a shit what they thought?
** i.e. European nativist, because again who in power gave a shit what the native Americans thought?
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
This is a lie. I've presented direct unedited quotes from both you and the sources. And they flatly contradict one another.
Every time you insist this, your inability to understand nuance is displayed all over again.
So fifty million. EDIT: As @Agema points out below, actually more like 28 million.

If we assume the very smallest number that constitutes 'hundreds of millions', It would be 4 times as many as relocated to the US during that century (or almost 8 times as many for ~28m)

Or if we go for a billion, it would be 20 times as many (EDIT: or ~37x for 28m)

And in the 1800s, the people are moving from areas that are still habitable. Moving to a continent that is (before their arrival) very sparsely populated. And even then, their relocation caused enormous suffering and upheaval for the native population. But with climate change, we're talking about forced displacement from newly uninhabitable areas, into places that are already much more densely populated, and on a scale of magnitude 4-37+ times greater.
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.

The comment I made for a billion, and then for hundreds of millions, was for the entire hemisphere, which is a lot bigger than just specifically European migration to specifically the US.

You're being exceptionally picky about numbers you don't actually understand pulled just from my memory with explicit qualifiers that they aren't exact. Don't waste your time on this.
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.
Does America still have that in your estimation?

If not, why are people coming this way in comparable scale to 100 years ago right now?
If so, why is it not a comparable situation suggesting people use the largely uninhabited land in Canada?