LOLZ, Attempted coverup, U.N. "50 million climate refugees in 2010" epic fail, moved to 2020

[Clifford]

I'm trying to figure out how you realistically and without bias quantify the number of "climate refugees"...

Eventually it may become clear that the number of environmental refugees has increased because of climate change, if the frequency of these events increases substantially, but I agree it would be hard to detect or quantify a small increase.

It is easy enough to count, or estimate the number of people displaced by a hurricane, earthquake, flood, etc. A little more difficult to count those displaced by a drought, but still something one might be able to count. Do Locusts count?

Attributing it to climate change becomes far more complicated as there are many additional factors including local population growth in the areas being affected, as well as the countries ability to internally absorb their displaced people (which also depends on population growth as well as infrastructure). And, perhaps individual's choice to emigrate rather than stay in their country.

So, if coastal populations in hurricane prone areas double, then it would be expected that hurricane displaced individuals could also double. However, even if the coastal population doesn't increase, population growth and poor infrastructure in the country as a whole could lead people to become international refugees.

Poor agriculture, forest, and even industrial practices could certainly cause local decreases in land productivity quite independent of the global climate situation. Or, individuals may choose not to continue extremely difficult or labor intensive agricultural practices, and allow some land to revert to nature.

[skierinvermont]

Right, given the uncertainty in the causal relation it would take a clear unambiguous increase in the number of refugees and the number of extreme events to make the causal relation clear. For example, if events like the Pakistani floods start happening much more frequently in the long run then we can be more confident that it is climate change rather than just luck or some other environmental or socioeconomic factor.

[tacoman25]

Right, given the uncertainty in the causal relation it would take a clear unambiguous increase in the number of refugees and the number of extreme events to make the causal relation clear. For example, if events like the Pakistani floods start happening much more frequently in the long run then we can be more confident that it is climate change rather than just luck or some other environmental or socioeconomic factor.

I don't know, even that is pretty ambiguous. So many things with climate/weather are cyclical, it would be pretty difficult to determine if an uptick in floods in a certain region was directly related to global warming.

[skierinvermont]

I don't know, even that is pretty ambiguous. So many things with climate/weather are cyclical, it would be pretty difficult to determine if an uptick in floods in a certain region was directly related to global warming.

That's why I said long run.. basically I am referring to a statistically significant increase in major floods globally.

[BethesdaWX]

That's why I said long run.. basically I am referring to a statistically significant increase in major floods globally.

Bingo, so, we should expect to see more refugees in total... thats why they say "Climate Change" refugees due to added impact.