Guest essay by Eric Worrall
UK Climate experts have prepared a map of countries they think are most at risk of climate change. However their map could easily be mistaken for a geopolitical risk map – the most “endangered” countries are, with few exceptions, countries which are neutral to or even hostile to the USA and Western interests.
http://blog.theecoexperts.co.uk/climate-change-map
High on their risk are countries such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan, countries whose populations regularly express hostility towards the USA and Western values.
US allies such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and most of Europe score well on the risk map – they are listed as countries least likely to be severely impacted by climate change.
All of this poses an obvious question – if we accept the map at face value, why should we care about climate change?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Looks good to me!
Is this “Climate Justice”?
“Why should we care about Climate Change?”
Because the Enema of my Enema is my friend that is full of $#IT
“””””…..All of this poses an obvious question – if we accept the map at face value, why should we care about climate change?…..”””””
Well there’s the rub; “if we accept…bla bla bla….
The “Map” is absurd on its face.
The currently inhabited countries deemed most unable to accept / adapt to climate change, are well known from history and paleontological research, to have survived, and flourished, and remained inhabited for hundreds of thousands; maybe millions of years longer than other countries that are mere hundreds of years inhabited, and many more that were uninhabited say 2,000 years ago.
So nyet, on that map being real or even having any face value.
It is sheer poppycock.
Smack dab in the middle of obummer’s homeland… Now it is starting to make sense. /sarc (kind of)
Right. What difference does climate change make? Those countries would be “at risk” whether there is climate change or not.
BIG THUMBS UP !!!
interesting. no country with a healthy economy is at risk from climate change. so the UN proposes we cripple our economies to defend ourselves. Only the UN could come up with such a plan.
And no country with low CO2 emissions has a healthy economy :
?w=860&h=608
Funny how that works……
Got it in one!
What do they mean by “at risk of climate change”? Risk is probability multiplied by consequence. What is the probability of climate change? What is the consequence of climate change? Do they tell us?
Since the source article was written by green troughers, members of the green blob, not UK climate experts, it has no worth.
By UK climate Experts do you mean the staff of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit,and thier “climategate” background, or did you miss off the sarc notification
Funnily enough, no! Some Environment Dept at the Uni of Notre Dame, by inference, pre-loaded conclusions from the get go!
“What do they mean by “at risk of climate change”? Risk is probability multiplied by consequence. What is the probability of climate change? What is the consequence of climate change? Do they tell us?”
There ya go with that arithmetic stuff again. Next you’ll want the tmperature numbers to make sense.
It would seem the data has nothing to do with UK climate experts, it was produced at the University of Notre Dame.
http://index.gain.org/ranking
And funded by evil fossil fuel capitalists–” $2 million gift from Natural Gas Partners Corp”
http://articles.southbendtribune.com/2013-04-18/news/38655705_1_global-adaptation-institute-climate-change-gain-index
I find it a bit odd that they would put the Netherlands among those to be least impacted by ‘climate change’. A post yesterday on WUWT had a couple of researchers claiming an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. It’s all a pack of crap anyway.
http://index.gain.org/ranking
Jimbo – Not a problem. At the supposed rate of sea level rise, a few grains of sand added to the dykes every year in the Netherlands will suffice. Probably not as much road sand as we use each winter … (coarse sand 0.2 mm to 2 mm)
What’s the probability of any value multiplied times ZERO risk ? Inquiring minds want to know !
There has always been a transfer of wealth agenda lurking in the background very thinly disguised as the notion that rich countries should pay “carbon reparations”to the poor. This looks like a list of the intended targets of UN generosity. No wonder it looks like it has more to do with geopolitics than geography.
The Greenland should be worried. Maybe they can provide ice for the Third Worlds’ cocktails.
Those UK “climate experts” seems to me more socio-economist(with some marxist view). The map show in fact(with some exception) the distribution of wealth on the earth. From the global warming real risk it’s a piece of sh__t.
What want to tell us the “scientist”? the green countries must quickly send a lot of money to th red countries.
Because all it’s about money.
It is much better to send money directly to climate activists, who know perfectly well in their wisdom how to spend it in the most efficient manner.
That is, on conferences held in splendid tropical resorts, where one can gain first hand experience of the lurking danger (of having too much Margarita).
Prosperous countries can adapt to climate change (manmade or natural). As many posters have pointed out before, prosperity is a good thing. Many folks have also pointed out that prosperous countries can afford to take much better care of their environments.
The green activists are trying to prevent prosperity and are therefore promoting much greater environmental degradation and human misery. It’s the law of unintended consequences writ large.
The one thing the gods reliably punish is hubris.
—All of this poses an obvious question – if we accept the map at face value, why should we care about climate change?—
Because politicians want give the enemies [problem countries] money- I mean tax payer money.
As they accustomed to buying and selling favors- and bonus is they poor and useless countries which therefore *apparently* should be dirt cheap to buy.
I am, to a large degree, color challenged (color blind). At first quick glance at the map I thought we were at risk of an invasion from Greenland.
But, how do you know which one is ‘green’land?
When I was a kid we played “Risk” quite a bit. An invasion from Greenland was something to be taken seriously.8-)
I thought AGW was a global problem, it seems on the Korean peninsula that only harm happens to North Korea!! Why is Malaysia affected and not Northern Australia? UK is at least risk, with USA and China (both with bigger economies and a much bigger land area, with more diverse climate) at greater risk?
It is a crock of sh*t like anything associated with AGW!
Silly goose, only poor brown people can be negatively impacted by CAGW.
This is something that really needs to be impressed on the voters in western democracies. Your tax dollars for terrorists.
I have long felt that AGW was a ruse to support a particular agenda. Thankfully the truth of this agenda is now understood by many:-
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official
“We routinely wrote scare stories…Our press reports were more or less true…We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment.”
Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency:
This is probably outside of the bounds of the “10 second sound bite” that most people in the U.S. adhere to, but I’d sure like to see this on a few public billboards. Maybe even a few college courses could be written around those two quotes.
I am already deeply concerned about values in colleges. Please don’t give them any ideas for tuition and revenue.
So why are North Korea and Somalia not included? Or is the blue off-scale. Either no risk at all or now completely destroyed by CC.
I’m assuming the grayed out countries like N Korea were outside the peramters for the study. They were figuring the survival chances for these countries a hundred years from now, and the grayed out ones won’t survive that long no matter what the Climate does.
The Gray color is not a rating. There’s just no data available. Most such studies don’t deal with North Korea and leave it dark or gray.
Since no North Korean would ever be able to read it it’s probably not worth the effort of asking the government for information and trying to dissect any credible data from it.
I wonder how much time and money went Ito this ‘research’.
Rather than climate risk I suggest the result should be viewed more as employment risk for the author of this nonsense.
According to Arrhenius, the father of GHG theory, the countries most at risk from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 are in the northern NH which you show as least at risk – ironic to say the least!
if you live in the northern NH climate change is welcomed every spring. that is why they couldn’t call it global warming any more. Too many people would welcome it.
They must be factoring in the countries ability to respond to “climate threats” otherwise the map makes my brain confused.
Or channeling the map of ‘Corruption’.
http://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/transparency.CPI2013/2/3/1.png
I notice west Papua and Papua New Guinea are divided by a political line. Curious discernment by global warming.
the line is between PNG and Indonesia.
@ur momisugly ferdberple
Although you’re right about what the line is, the point that David was making was slightly subtler. He’s asking “How does Global Warming know about the border?”
Now it’s true that assigning unitary values for a country will often produce distinct value differences at a border, so the map isn’t necessarily wrong- but for that particular border it looks highly likely to be incorrect. All other factors except the political do look to be identical as far as the impact of ‘Global Warming’ is concerned.
I note that ‘ability to cope with Climate Change’ on that map, appears to be a direct function of per-capita CO2 emissions.
I doubt the map is correct in terms of harm to countries. I also believe that even if it were correct Australian support for PNG would mean it did not ‘suffer’ as badly as the map-makers depict.
My doubt is not merely wishful thinking, but based on the huge and ever-increasing discrepancy between forecasts and actuality, as well as their colleagues’ practice of graphing only gross negatives without offsetting benefits.
This is worthless, incompetence.
Agree totally – but it does indicate the motivation behind the “agenda”
…at least for those clueless enough to not already know that…..
Anyone notice some countries are kind of blue greyish on the map? There are a couple countries in Africa (Somalia and some country in north western Africa), Asia (North Korea) and in South America. What do they mean by that?
There is no blue greyish colour on the scale…
If you go to the source web site for the map, they also break it down to the different regions. In the legends of the zoomed maps, it does state “No Data”..
Funny thing, scrolling down on their web page, the United States ranks 8th in ability to survive “Climate Change”. I wonder if our ranking would improve if we “gave” more “assistance” to the “at risk” countries. Can forgiveness be bought? Probably in their minds, they’d like us to try.
Reply to Mr J ==> It means “inadequate data to make a judgement”.
This is why links to original materials are useful — I think one has to do a double jump (link to news article, then link to original web site) to discover this.
“inadequate data to make a judgement” Humf, never stopped them before!
Bolivia? what the heck makes them think Bolivia is higher risk?
Agree! Laughable ranking. Certainly not sea rise.
A leftist president.
Oddest map I’ve ever seen. I suspect what they are trying to show is that the hottest countries, by getting hotter (in their scenario), will pass a tipping point beyond which crops will stop growing, cattle will die, and human beings will have to leave or die; but wait! If the current cooling (“pause”) continues, the coolest countries, by getting cooler, may pass a tipping point beyond which crops will stop growing, cattle will die, and human beings will have to leave, which would reverse the color scheme of the map. I think a more likely scenario is that none of this will happen, and we will stay where we are and die of disease or being hit by a Mack truck.
That’ll be easy. Just change the legend. Blue high risk, red low risk.
Australia is hot, but it is shown as one of the most likely to survive. This suggests that temperature is not the deciding factor. Most of the countries at risk are already basket cases that can’t solve today’s problems, let alone tomorrows. So of course they are at risk. They would be at risk of not surviving even if climate remained exactly as it is today.
What about Antarctica? I thought the brits said it would be the only place to live.
“High on their risk are countries such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan, countries whose populations regularly express hostility towards the USA and Western values.
[…]
if we accept the map at face value, why should we care […]?”
====================================
Because “we all inhabit this planet.
We all breathe the same air.
We all cherish our children’s future.
And we are all mortal.”
-John F. Kennedy
King Crane Commission Report, 1919
Wishes of the People
“The Moslems constitute about four-fifths of the actual population of Palestine, according to a recent British census. Except for certain official groups they were practically unanimous for the independence of United Syria, and were responsive to the current political influences. The organizations met at Jaffa took the position that Syria is capable of self-government without a mandatory power, but if one should be insisted upon by the Peace Conference, they preferred the United States.
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_King-Crane_Report
I often express hostility to the United States too. Most Australians do.
Whereas I often express gratitude for the loyal support of our Australian allies in our most difficult and painful endeavors. (Most Americans do.)
The same scenario is in Canada. I believe it is linked to the total lack of education MOST Americans have about the world as far as geography and history is concerned, so when a survey is done it becomes slanted. Some of the things said about Canada, Australia and others by the general USA public (in some cases not so general look at the nominees for ambassadors for the US) is downright insulting!
Most Australians do not express hostility to USA.
the informed ones do mate:-)
the sheep believe the media spin
“I often express hostility to the United States too. Most Australians do.”
Not correct. Only true among the latte lefty set, an entitled minority that includes the hand-wringing Fairfax media crowd.
And here is the world poverty map.
Notice any similarities? Hands up all those who think the similarities are purely coincidental.
The poorest countries are at risk because they are the poorest countries. If they were allowed to bring themselves out of poverty with the help of, say, cheap power sources, then the risk would reduce.
The green blob want to reduce our standard of living, by limiting access to energy via CO2 controls, rather than increasing the standard of living of others.
If one wants to be accurate about all this, those countries are infinitely more at risk from proposed climate mitigation than from the mild warming we are currently experiencing.
…than from the mild warming we WERE experiencing until about 15-20yrs ago.
Fixed it for ya.
Presumably the authors are still regurgitating the “Climate change causes conflict” rubbish, not just which countries might get hotter? Extremist nonsense or non-science!