So-called environmentally induced migration is multi-level problem. According to Essam El-Hinnawi definition form 1985 environmental refugees as ―those people who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a marked environmental disruption (natural or triggered by people) that jeopardised their existence and/or seriously affected the quality of their life. The fundamental distinction between `environmental migrants` and `environmental refugees` is a standpoint of contemporsry studies in EDPs.

According to Bogumil Terminski it seems reasonable to distinguish the general category of environmental migrants from the more specific (subordinate to it) category of environmental refugees.

Environmental migrants, therefore, are persons making a short-lived, cyclical, or longerterm change of residence, of a voluntary or forced character, due to specific environmental factors. Environmental refugees form a specific type of environmental migrant.

Environmental refugees, therefore, are persons compelled to spontaneous, short-lived, cyclical, or longer-term changes of residence due to sudden or gradually worsening changes in environmental factors important to their living, which may be of either a short-term or an irreversible character.

The science says the opposite. Try “Global sea surface temperature is approximately 1 degree C higher now than 140 years ago, and is one of the primary physical impacts of climate change.” (European Environment Agency).

“the increase in [ocean] heat content was 16 x 10^22 J since 1961″ (Argo web site). That’s about the energy of a Hiroshima sized bomb every minute or so by my calculations.

Or are you just parrotting Watt’s or David Evan’s claim about “2003-2008 Argo data shows cooling”? Well the Argo scientists that initially thought that reversed their position in in 2007/8, once they realised that they had problems with the temperature sensors that are used by the Argo ocean sensor network “Two Kinds of Bad Data” NASA Earth observatory). Still, that doesn’t stop Watts et al from using the proven bad data to continue to make “no ocean cooling claims” years later. Nor does it stop the denial echo chamber from continuing to echo bad data for years and years, with no retraction in sight. Let’s compare that to the IPCC who issued corrections publicly.

Thats the difference between science and opinion kiddies. The process of Science eventually finds bad data/conclusions, weeds them out, and moves on stronger than ever. The deny-o-sphere just keeps making stuff up and echoing poor data/conclusions for ever.

Unfortunately the use of the “Gish Gallop” by deniers- a process where huge quantities of half-truths are dispensed at a rapid-fire rate- means that the process where each specious claim gets rigorously and factually disproven cannot be done within the timeframe required for a TV debate.

Go watch Richard Alley dissect Lord Monckton’s presentation (“Abraham presentation” in your favourite search engine). You can see the time it takes to disprove one claim. For example, if Monckton claims that the research work of a scientist supports his view, then it takes some e-mails to the scientist to get the answer that Monckton has misrepresented the research and the scientists’ conclusion- in fact has turned it around to try to support the opposite conclusion to the original science!

Get in a TV debate and even if you’ve counteracted the previous blather and balderdash and have the proof that those claims were rubbish up your sleeve, there is nothing stopping some more freshly generated bunkum being thrown out as “proof”. Requiring more fastidious and time consuming followup to again prove that the new lot of BS is definitively what it smelt like.

Umm- could it be that because there are lots of short term factors which climate scientists know about, some of which drive temperature up (e.g. CO2, El Nino), some of which drive temperature down (e.g. more dust/pollution in the atmosphere). These short term changes don’t affect the overall upward temperature trend- that is, a short term cooling factor may temporarily reduce or stabilise global temperatures, but once it disappears or reverses (La Nina to El Nino, sunspot cycle etc) then the temperature goes back to its overall climb.

That’s why it is climate scientists should be listened to, not “spare time op-ed armchair scientists”. With their claims of “no warming for a decade, global warming is disproven”.

Anyway, as Molly would have said, do yourself a favour and search for “Still Going Down the Up Escalator”, have a look at the graphs of decades of temperature readings (collated/analysed by a research team led by a celebrated climate change skeptic).

Then see if you think temperatures are going up over the decades, and if “no rise in the last decade” is a valid claim. Anyone with half a brain will see that short term factors wobble the line up and down a bit, but it slowly and inexorably rises.

Most of the other half-baked claims made by the deniers commenting here are also well and truly demolished at Skeptical Science. But instead of the posturing and misinformed opinions and recycled bunkum you will get references to real science done by people putting their careers on the line every time they publish.

Let me be very clear, I don’t expect you to change your mind any more I would be swayed by your short comment. This (global warming) has become quasi religious, people either believe it or not.

In the first paragraph you are referring to anthropogenic global warming,(AGW) that is the increase in temperature is solely due to the increase in carbon dioxide that we are, by industrial processes on this our earth, responsible for the ANY temperature increase that may have occurred in this my beloved planet.

You will notice that the global warming debate is coming to “our side”; the comments on “Expertise a prerequisite to comment on climate” written by Kevin Trenberth should be extremely worrying to the advocates of AGW.

Len Marks
marks.len6@gmail.com

While the Earth has always endured natural climate change variability, we are now facing the possibility of irreversible climate change in the near future. The increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere from industrial processes has enhanced the natural greenhouse effect. This in turn has accentuated the greenhouse ‘trap’ effect, causing greenhouse gases to form a blanket around the Earth, inhibiting the sun’s heat from leaving the outer atmosphere. This increase of greenhouse gases is causing an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. A direct consequence of this is sea-level rise expansion, which is primarily due to the thermal expansion of oceans (water expands when heated), inducing the melting of ice sheets as global surface temperature increases.

Forecasts for climate change by the 2,000 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) project a rise in the global average surface temperature by 1.4 to 5.8°C from 1990 to 2100. This will result in a global mean sea level rise by an average of 5 mm per year over the next 100 years. Consequently, human-induced climate change will have ‘deleterious effects’ on ecosystems, socio-economic systems and human welfare.At the moment, especially high risks associated with the rise of the oceans are having a particular impact on the two archipelagic states of Western Polynesia: Tuvalu and Kiribati. According to UN forecasts, they may be completely inundated by the rising waters of the Pacific by 2050.According to the vast majority of scientific investigations, warming waters and the melting of polar and high-elevation ice worldwide will steadily raise sea levels. This will likely drive people off islands first by spoiling the fresh groundwater, which will kill most land plants and leave no potable water for humans and their livestock.

Low-lying island states like Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and the Maldives are the most prominent nations threatened in this way.“The biggest challenge is to preserve their nationality without a territory,” said Bogumil Terminski from Geneva. The best solution is continue to recognize deterritorialized states as a normal states in public international law. The case of Kiribati and other small island states is a particularly clear call to action for more secure countries to respond to the situations facing these ‘most vulnerable nations’, as climate change increasingly impacts upon their lives.