Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Happened To the Climate Refugees?

Comments Filter:
  • by ideonexus (1257332) * on Sunday April 17, 2011 @10:33AM (#35847588) Homepage Journal

    This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting. If the UN had released a report claiming 50 million global warming refugees by 2010, there would be dozens of news articles on it. The supposed incriminating evidence is a Google Cache page with this map [grida.no] that doesn't itself say anything about refugees, but does highlight areas most susceptible to sea level rise. The "50 million climate refugees by 2010 [googleusercontent.com]" statement is not referenced anywhere in any UN report, it's a six words on one defunct graphic that was part of a larger report on world agriculture [grida.no] by the UN University. This 50 million by 2010 figure comes from Dr. Bogardi at the UN University in Bonn [guardian.co.uk], NOT the United Nations.

    The problem with this prediction being made by any scientist is that keeping track of how many refugees there are is difficult (current estimate by the UN is 1 million a year [unep.org], a figure that the Red Cross lends support to with the statement that environmental disasters are displacing more people than war now) and the causes are debatable. The epic flooding in Pakistan created 10 million refugees [reuters.com], Hurricane Katrina added a quarter of a million refugees [www.cbc.ca], and desertification in Africa is displacing millions. Can we blame these events on Global Warming? Hurricanes and floods happen without a warming world, but a warming world increases the chances of such disasters happening.

    Then there are the refugees that no one realizes. In the small coastal town where I live in North Carolina, houses have been falling into the swamp one by one for decades, but the residents blame it on people building their homes in flood zones, not realizing that sea levels in their state have risen three times the rate of rise on the rest of the Atlantic coast [sciencedaily.com]. People didn't build their homes in the water, the water rose 1.5 meters over the 50 years since they were built, but nobody realizes this because of landscape amnesia [wikipedia.org].

    You can read all about the various estimates concerning environmental refugees on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. It took the author of this untruth less than an hour to post their nonsense and the deniers flooded the Internet with it quickly. It took me two hours to research and write this response, because I wanted to know what I was talking about, and I will only reach a very small audience in comparison. This is why I despair when considering how science could possibly stand a chance against the overwhelming confidence ignorance brings the unscientific masses.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "sea levels in their state have risen three times the rate of rise on the rest of the Atlantic coast [sciencedaily.com]."

      What the quoted article actually says:

      ScienceDaily (Oct. 29, 2009) — An international team of environmental scientists led by the University of Pennsylvania has shown that sea-level rise, at least in North Carolina, is accelerating. Researchers found 20th-century sea-level rise to be three times higher than the rate of sea-level rise during the last 500 years. In addition, this jump

      • by Pete Venkman (1659965) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @10:56AM (#35847696) Journal

        Looks like you didn't read either.

        "Furthermore, the acceleration appears consistent with other studies from the Atlantic coast, though the magnitude of the acceleration in North Carolina is larger than at sites farther north along the U.S. and Canadian Atlantic coast and may be indicative of a latitudinal trend related to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet."

        The article does state that NC's coast is creeping more quickly than at other points along the Atlantic coast.

      • by Cyberax (705495) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @11:00AM (#35847724)

        "It seems more than a little illogical to state that sea levels rise higher in one Atlantic coast state than the others."

        Nothing illogical. 'Sea level' is an averaged value, which depends on currents and winds.

        "And the primary sea level rise occurred well before the evil auto culture."

        Coal was used in large quantities even before automobiles.

        "But then I'm just an ignoramus according to the above post."

        And here we both agree.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pubwvj (1045960)

        Also not in the news is the fact that the sea level used to be a LOT higher than it is now and it used to be a LOT lower than it is now. Things change. That's life. None of it had anything to do with humans.

        The planet has also been warmer and cooler in the past. When the planet was warmer there was more diversity of life, large swaths of land that are currently too cold for much bio-diversity were more useable by nature and man. When it got colder it was hell. Things change. Given my druthers I would take w

        • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @02:56PM (#35849424)

          Close. The right starting and ending letters...different middle, "pula".

          po----tion

          Cut po-pula-tion.

          Nothing we do will matter if we don't stop incenting new babies and let the population naturally fall to 3 billion (even 2 billion- the planet would be a paradise with 2 billion).

          If you don't take these measures now- you STILL have take them when we hit 9 billion (10 billion... 11 billion) and life will be a lot more miserable then with dead fisheries, high cellulose fruits and vegetables and no meat except for the wealthy.

          We can fix most of these problems in one generation.

          • by cdrguru (88047) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @03:53PM (#35849822) Homepage

            I'd say you are an order of magnitude off of "paradise" - we need to get to around 250 million if we want "sustainable".

            Even trying to cut the population in half (more than half, really) would require nearly preventing all births for 10-20 years. Sure, it is possible but it is entirely possible that you would wreck the motivation people have for having children completely. If you push too hard on this there is the possiblity that people will just give up.

            This is a factor that some of the more radical environmentalists refuse to accept - that if you push hard enough the result will be that people will just give up entirely. All it takes is about 15 years of zero birthrate and you're not going to get it back, ever. Absolutely it is hard to disincent the drive to reproduce - but if you succeed the result could be catastrophic.

            How hard would you have to push? Well, in the US and Western Europe today the population growth is negative. Many people feel that it isn't fair to bring children into a world of declining expectations and looming destruction of the environment. Mostly this is among educated young people. In the US we are left with immigration as the only population growth factor there is and I suspect Western Europe is pretty much the same way. This portends some very drastic changes in the coming decades as the population shifts away from educated European-extracted peoples and towards Latin American folks that have been subsistance farming for generations and no goals higher than survival. In most inner cities today the idea of the straight-A student is a subject of ridicule, as is the idea of going to college - what, do you want to be seen as trying to prove yourself better than your peers?

        • by HiThere (15173)

          If it's warm AND MOIST, then the planet will indeed support more diversity. But that diversity takes time to evolve (not just centuries) and I don't think people would give it an opportunity.

          For that matter, life over most of the globe was a lot more diverse before people invented archery and nets. This is true whether it was warm, cool, or cold. The only exception is the tropical rain forests, where the climate was so intense that most tools were quickly destroyed by it. Then diversity tended to hang o

        • When the planet was warmer there was more diversity of life, large swaths of land that are currently too cold for much bio-diversity were more useable by nature and man. When it got colder it was hell. Things change. Given my druthers I would take warmer, please.

          Are you aware that the warmest parts of the globe are deserts?

          Ice ages might be bad for biodiversity in the Northern latitudes, but our main problem today is desertification and global warming only makes it worse.

        • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @03:53PM (#35849816)

          Stop whining about me lighting your house on fire. Houses have burned before in this area and houses will burn again. None of it had anything to do with humans. Sure I poured gasoline on all the bushes around your house and threw a match into the mix... but it's not like "a burning bush" is a new phenomenon--we even have documentation of this in biblical times. Relax!

      • It seems more than a little illogical to state that sea levels rise higher in one Atlantic coast state than the others

        Not illogical, only it takes some analysis to understand.

        What happens is that the global warming is causing the ocean water to become less dense, both by dilution by melted ice and by thermal expansion from the increased temperature.

        The surface of the ocean is approximately an ellipsoid whose exact shape depend on a number of factors. When the surface rises due to the increase in water volume this rise is slightly different from place to place. At the latitude of North Carolina this increase happens to be m

    • by FrootLoops (1817694) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @11:02AM (#35847742)
      Maybe I missed it, but why do you say "This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting"? The author of TFA, Gavin Atkins, appears to be Australian [asiancorrespondent.com]. The hosting site, Asian Correspondent [wikipedia.org], doesn't appear to be related to American news. I agree with the general statement that science reporting is more often than not just terrible, but I don't see how America's science reporting enters in here. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful post!
    • by FooAtWFU (699187) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @11:11AM (#35847806) Homepage

      This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting.

      America has no science reporting. It has sciency reporting, in the Steven-Colbert "truthiness" sense. Now consider that the media is the main way that "climate change" gets communicated to the people of America. The media... and politicians. Is there any surprise that lots of people are insanely skeptical of it? I'd even say that with those inputs, calling it all a load of nonsense is a very rational response.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The UN Environment Programme specifically cites those figures in their report, and a 2008 report on un.org's own news site [un.org] repeats those claims:

      Citing a report from the UN University, UNEP said that there were now more than 19 million people officially recognized as “persons of concern” – people who are likely to be displaced because of environmental disasters. UNEP said that figure is expected to grow to about 50 million by the end of 2010.

      That article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with the UN's science reporting. You can't have it both ways -- expect us to believe what the UN says about climate when we can't prove them wrong, and expect us to ignore their claims when they have been proven wrong. Making outrageous predictions like the above is political grandstanding at its worst, and has no pla

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mvdwege (243851)

        Perhaps it escaped your attention, but the bit you're quoting says nothing about the amount of refugees, it is rather an assesment on the areas that are at risk of producing refugees for whatever reason, including rising sea levels

        Which was exactly wat the OP was pointing out.

        Another data point for the hypothesis that climate denialism correlates with stupidity, I guess.

        Mart

        • It doesn't say "at risk", it says "likely". And the reasons are for climate reasons, although not all due to rising sea levels.

          This correlates with the story slashdot printed which is that 50M refugees were predicted due to climate reasons.

          And the real numbers were much much lower.

          The climate change issue has been so poorly represented on both sides. One side says nothing is happening at all. While the other makes overly dire predictions and draws unprovable conclusions (Katrina is due to global warming) in

          • by DarenN (411219)

            One side says nothing is happening at all.

            You know, I've never actually heard anyone saying this. The contention of the skeptical side is that the current warming trend is not anthropogenic.

            For myself, my major problem is that the catastrophic positive temperature feedback predicted by the people who believe the warming is anthropogenic makes no sense and has little evidence historically to back it up. The very long term temperature cycles show that what we should be actually worried about is the ice-age that follows quickly after most temperature

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by pubwvj (1045960)

      This is like the livestock's long shadow mess they did a while back. They claimed that raising meat is responsible for more global warming than transportation (e.g., cars). This became widely quoted and used as an excuse by the vegan crowd for trying to force every to stop eating meat. The problem was the report was full of errors and in general a fraud. It didn't include the full costs of transportation yet it over included the costs for livestock resulting in totally distorted numbers. More importantly it

    • by slasho81 (455509)
      Your +5 Informative post is why I still have faith in humanity (and Slashdot). Thanks for researching and posting it.
    • by phantomfive (622387) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @12:00PM (#35848190) Journal
      You make a valiant attempt to explain away the article, but the actual explanation is much simpler. The UN University indeed is the one who issued the report, but they are merely a UN think tank [wikipedia.org]. Furthermore, UNEP also cited the report [unep.org], and UNEP started the IPCC, so it is not unreasonable to say that the UN was claiming this. The UNEP is as much a part of the UN as the IPCC.

      To really understand this, you have to look at the claim. Let's look at what the UN actually said:

      there are now about 19.2 million people officially recognized as "persons of concern"-that is, people likely to be displaced because of environmental disasters. This figure is predicted to grow to about 50 million by the end of the year 2010.

      Note that the number is not environmental refugees, but actually persons of concern. There is a huge difference between the two, and the second is probably not inaccurate.

      Now, on the website in question, UNEP said this

      Fifty million climate refugees by 2010

      This is obviously not what the original researchers were claiming. Who knows why UNEP put that on their website, but it is most likely an error of their PR agency, not of their science. In short, the scientists were probably right, but the propagandaists were wrong.

      • by ScentCone (795499) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @01:48PM (#35848932)

        In short, the scientists were probably right, but the propagandaists were wrong.

        And yet it's the propogandists that influence the minds of Hollywood celebrities and other high-profile people who then spout off on the subject and encourage people to vote one way or another on politicians that want to involve trillions of dollars on the subject, or use it as a vehicle by which to tax one group and give it to another group. That's the problem.

  • by js3 (319268) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @10:35AM (#35847600)

    Shouldn't we be happy that it didn't happen.. instead of gloating about it?

    • these people are dangerous. we must be pointing this out at every opportunity and never forget that this whole Global Warming er i mean Climate Change is nothing more then a political movement. it seeks to control, regulate and enslave everyone... all under the premise that the world needs saving and their way is the only true way. convert or die.

      what should be scaring the hell out of everyone is the very 1984, Winston Smith way they went about trying to edit their propaganda. what happens when they learn

  • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Sunday April 17, 2011 @10:43AM (#35847640) Homepage Journal

    Sure, we're in an Ice Age [wikipedia.org], and in an interglacial period where we'd expect ice sheets to be retreating and temperatures warming, but give me money and power and I'll put a stop to it!

    • If you had taken a quick look at the link you provided, you'd have seen this graph [wikipedia.org] that shows how temperatures rise very quickly after an ice age and then slowly creep down over millennia.

      If we are in an interglacial period, climate should be cooling, not warming.

      • Look at the right side of the graph. That's us, time 0, still in the upward swing. For whatever reason, this interglacial period looks most like one that's 61,000 years long, not the usual 12,000 year one.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Er... RIGHT side of the graph?

          Take another look. Particularly at the x axis.

      • by blueg3 (192743)

        Both your and GP's comment have the serious problem that you don't quantify the rate of temperature change in the glacial cycle. Any temperature change can look "very quick" if you scale the time axis appropriately.

      • by Rockoon (1252108)

        If you had taken a quick look at the link you provided, you'd have seen this graph that shows how temperatures rise very quickly after an ice age and then slowly creep down over millennia.

        The graph shows temperature rise takes between thousands and tens of thousands of years, and you have disingenuously declared that to be "very quickly"

        Dishonest much?

      • by emt377 (610337) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @02:00PM (#35849008)

        If you had taken a quick look at the link you provided, you'd have seen this graph [wikipedia.org] that shows how temperatures rise very quickly after an ice age and then slowly creep down over millennia.

        If we are in an interglacial period, climate should be cooling, not warming.

        I see about one degree per 10000 years on the upswing. Sustained over a century or more, one degree C per 25 years means it's 25/10025 = 0.25% caused by interglacial warming and 99.75% something else. Or, rounded to the nearest integer, 0% and 100% respectively. Clearly, finding out what this 'something else' is rather than pretend it doesn't exist would seem to be prudent.

  • There are many refugees in the world. Some of them have moved because of economic conditions (which may be caused by climate change) or civil wars (which may be also influenced by weather - remember that one of the causes of the French revolution was the bad weather caused by an Icelandic volcano eruption (the year without a summer.

    And nobody knows how many illegals there are in the USA...

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @10:54AM (#35847690)

    Scientific American (irony not intended)

    Okay, We Give Up
    We feel so ashamed
    By The Editors | Friday, April 1, 2005 | 55

    There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
    In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

    Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

    Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

    Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either-so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.

    Scientific American is a trademark of Scientific American, Inc., used with permission

    © 2011 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc.
    All Rights Reserved.

    • by jmac_the_man (1612215) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @11:41AM (#35848014)
      So wait. As I understand it, the problem with Intelligent Design is that it's not falsifiable, right? There's no way to set up an experiment with observable results to disprove the statement, "A supernatural Creator created mankind." That's the problem, right?

      By contrast, a subset of modern evolutionary theory states that "Dinosaurs became extinct roughly 65 million years before the first humans." This is falsifiable. Lets say an archeological team discovered a fossilized brontosaurus near a pyramid site in Egypt. Let's also say the brontosaurus had a block shaped like it was used in constructing the pyramids strapped to its head. Let's further say that the brontosaurus was found in the same soil layer that you'd expect other ancient Egyptian artifacts to be found in. And then lets say they found another brontosaurus near the Mayan pyramids. And one near the Great Wall of China. Eventually, science would come to the conclusion that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. (The fact that no one has been able to do this points to the strength of the original theory.)

      The statements "Man is causing Global Warming" and "Man is not causing Global Warming," by contrast, are both falsifiable. A lot of the "Man is causing Global Warming" science is hard to falsify, but that's because the people doing that research are hiding their original numbers and only using massaged data to "hide the decline" in the amount of Global Warming taking place. For once, a scientist put out an easily falsified Global Warming theory, that is "By 2010, there would be 50 million climate refugees, and they'd come from these specific places." 2010 has come and gone, and there aren't 50 million climate refugees. Therefore, his falsifiable statement has been proven false.

      The correct scientific thing to do is to discard his prediction and move on. Moving on means making changes to similar predictions that are based on the same data, or directly on his prediction. It means giving up whatever money was set aside to deal with the climate refugees. It means maybe next time, listening to the people who say that there won't be 50 million climate refugees in the next five years.

      It doesn't mean mocking the people who disagreed with the original prediction for something that has nothing to do with what they said or did. A challenge to a theory isn't "an attack on science," but refusing to let go of an idea that has clearly been proven false is.

    • looks like that was an april fools joke

      • by Sir_Sri (199544)

        that doesn't make the article any less insightful. The first 4 paragraphs are not practical joke funny, they're irony and sarcasm. The last paragraph is the only traditional 'joke' part of the story, but the rest of it is definitely insightful, as the article itself clearly recognizes. There are lots of comedy shows that use comedy to be insightful about the political process after all.

        Ironically the anti-ICBM stance from 6 years ago might have been wrong. Though obviously the success and failure of ant

  • Not scary that the predictions are wrong, but that populations in those locations are increasing. We'd better hope these climate change predictions continue being very, very wrong.

  • Anyone know if the regions in China on the map that show droughts are the same places experiencing droughts now?

  • by wisebabo (638845) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @11:14AM (#35847836) Journal

    ... but here in Vietnam we DO hear quite a bit about the rapid encroachment (and salinization) by the ocean into the Mekong delta. It is clear that with the ocean coming in (I seem to remember an encroachment figure of 1.4km/yr.) and that hundreds of thousands have already been displaced because they can no longer farm there. (This has driven the growth of the big cities which is where I live). The government is constantly projecting that millions more will move in the next few decades (This is from their Thanh Nhien News which is a pretty widely read paper, there's an English website you can visit).

    Of course matters will soon be made even worse as upstream countries start damming the Mekong. (They may be doing so because the freshwater source in the Himalayas is losing its snowpack cover. This may also be due to climate change.)

    Vietnam is supposedly one of the most susceptible countries to sea level rising but I can imagine things could be even worse in an even poorer (and closer to sea level) country like Bangladesh.

    • by phantomfive (622387) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @11:43AM (#35848034) Journal

      Vietnam is supposedly one of the most susceptible countries to sea level rising but I can imagine things could be even worse in an even poorer (and closer to sea level) country like Bangladesh.

      It is. National Geographic has a fascinating article [nationalgeographic.com] on how Bangladesh deals with things like rising oceans and other types of floods. Note that they also have one of the highest population densities in the world, which makes it even harder to deal with.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      ... but here in Vietnam we DO hear quite a bit about the rapid encroachment (and salinization) by the ocean into the Mekong delta. It is clear that with the ocean coming in (I seem to remember an encroachment figure of 1.4km/yr.) and that hundreds of thousands have already been displaced because they can no longer farm there. (This has driven the growth of the big cities which is where I live). The government is constantly projecting that millions more will move in the next few decades (This is from their Thanh Nhien News which is a pretty widely read paper, there's an English website you can visit).

      Of course matters will soon be made even worse as upstream countries start damming the Mekong. (They may be doing so because the freshwater source in the Himalayas is losing its snowpack cover. This may also be due to climate change.)

      Vietnam is supposedly one of the most susceptible countries to sea level rising but I can imagine things could be even worse in an even poorer (and closer to sea level) country like Bangladesh.

      surely you can come up with some legitimate report of these 1.4km/year losses of property??? no???

      you know I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the sky is actually orange

  • Oh goody. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Toze (1668155) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @11:20AM (#35847876)
    Another religious debate. /flee
  • by guanxi (216397) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @11:21AM (#35847884)

    Slashdot now reposts Daily Caller propaganda? It's almost the quality of the 'FBI confirms aliens' post recently. I like this comment in the Daily Caller article; I'm glad /. helps drive their page views, and can follow instructions:

    Be sure to leave comments on any website that makes this claim, and link to this and the Asian Correspondent website.

    The article is a bit absurd. It looks for the 50 million refugees in the Bahamas, St. Lucia, Seychelles, and Solomon Islands. Safe to say, if you look for 50 million carbon-based humans there, you won't find them.

    What is a 'climate refugee' and how many are there? Does this disprove AGW or point to some evil conspiracy? It's surprising to see /. wasting space and its reputation on this nonsense.

    Maybe /. will become News of the World [wikimedia.org] for geeks: Sensation for nerds but stuff that doesn't matter.

  • by kawabago (551139) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @12:04PM (#35848230)
    Their arrival has been delayed by bad weather.
  • There are plenty of people around the world who would prefer to be refugees than be in their current situation, but they are held back by economic factors. You can't claim refugee status while you are still in your birth country, and you can't leave your country if you don't have the financial means to leave. There are plenty of areas where climate shift has had detrimental effects on peoples' ways of life, but some of those same places are under other circumstances of economic repression at the same time
  • You'd know that there *are* millions of climate refugees.

    Start here [wikipedia.org] or here [www.cbc.ca] or here ("12 out of 13 'flash' appeals in 2007 related to weather"). [guardian.co.uk] Here's 3/4 of a million [bbc.co.uk] soon to be refugees in just ONE island nation (now go add up the rest).

    Pretty nice writing that snide and ignorant summary from your comfortable suburban basement, wasn't it?

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...