Climate Risk Map – Mainly Countries Hostile to the USA

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.


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?

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mac the Knife
January 14, 2015 11:03 pm

Looks good to me!

Reply to  Mac the Knife
January 15, 2015 5:29 am

Is this “Climate Justice”?

Bryan A
Reply to  ConTrari
January 15, 2015 10:00 am

“Why should we care about Climate Change?”
Because the Enema of my Enema is my friend that is full of $#IT

george e. smith
Reply to  ConTrari
January 15, 2015 1:27 pm

“””””…..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.

average joe
Reply to  Mac the Knife
January 15, 2015 12:49 pm

Smack dab in the middle of obummer’s homeland… Now it is starting to make sense. /sarc (kind of)

January 14, 2015 11:07 pm

Right. What difference does climate change make? Those countries would be “at risk” whether there is climate change or not.

Reply to  Louis
January 15, 2015 1:04 am


Reply to  Louis
January 15, 2015 5:37 am

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.

Anything is possible
Reply to  ferdberple
January 15, 2015 11:06 am

And no country with low CO2 emissions has a healthy economy :comment image?w=860&h=608
Funny how that works……

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Louis
January 15, 2015 6:56 am

Got it in one!

January 14, 2015 11:21 pm

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.

Reply to  phillipbratby
January 15, 2015 1:32 am

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

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Harrowsceptic
January 15, 2015 7:01 am

Funnily enough, no! Some Environment Dept at the Uni of Notre Dame, by inference, pre-loaded conclusions from the get go!

John the Cube
Reply to  phillipbratby
January 15, 2015 8:18 am

“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.

January 14, 2015 11:24 pm

It would seem the data has nothing to do with UK climate experts, it was produced at the University of Notre Dame.

Lance Wallace
Reply to  phillipbratby
January 15, 2015 12:43 am

And funded by evil fossil fuel capitalists–” $2 million gift from Natural Gas Partners Corp”

Reply to  Lance Wallace
January 15, 2015 5:05 am

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.

Reply to  Lance Wallace
January 15, 2015 9:47 pm

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)

January 14, 2015 11:28 pm

What’s the probability of any value multiplied times ZERO risk ? Inquiring minds want to know !

Ian H
January 14, 2015 11:30 pm

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.

Reply to  Ian H
January 15, 2015 2:17 pm

The Greenland should be worried. Maybe they can provide ice for the Third Worlds’ cocktails.

January 14, 2015 11:32 pm

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.

Berényi Péter
Reply to  Gabriel
January 15, 2015 9:28 am

the green countries must quickly send a lot of money to the red countries

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).

Reply to  Gabriel
January 15, 2015 11:09 am

Because all it’s about money.

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 law of unintended consequences has come to be used as an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system tends to create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes. Akin to Murphy’s law, it is commonly used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them. ” (the emphasis is mine)

The one thing the gods reliably punish is hubris.

January 14, 2015 11:45 pm

—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.

January 14, 2015 11:47 pm

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.

Reply to  Skeptic
January 15, 2015 1:31 am

But, how do you know which one is ‘green’land?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Skeptic
January 15, 2015 7:32 am

When I was a kid we played “Risk” quite a bit. An invasion from Greenland was something to be taken seriously.8-)

January 15, 2015 12:18 am

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!

Reply to  andrewmharding
January 15, 2015 9:02 am

Silly goose, only poor brown people can be negatively impacted by CAGW.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
January 15, 2015 12:24 am

This is something that really needs to be impressed on the voters in western democracies. Your tax dollars for terrorists.

Doug UK
January 15, 2015 12:26 am

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:

Reply to  Doug UK
January 15, 2015 5:37 am

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.

Reply to  jimmaine
January 15, 2015 9:40 am

I am already deeply concerned about values in colleges. Please don’t give them any ideas for tuition and revenue.

January 15, 2015 12:42 am

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.

Reply to  Lank
January 15, 2015 8:50 am

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.

Miguel Sanchez
Reply to  Lank
January 15, 2015 2:02 pm

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.

January 15, 2015 12:45 am

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.

Peter Azlac
January 15, 2015 12:52 am

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!

Reply to  Peter Azlac
January 15, 2015 5:45 am

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.

January 15, 2015 1:09 am

They must be factoring in the countries ability to respond to “climate threats” otherwise the map makes my brain confused.

DD More
Reply to  ohflow
January 15, 2015 6:55 am

Or channeling the map of ‘Corruption’.

David the Voter
January 15, 2015 1:25 am

I notice west Papua and Papua New Guinea are divided by a political line. Curious discernment by global warming.

Reply to  David the Voter
January 15, 2015 5:46 am

the line is between PNG and Indonesia.

Leo Morgan
Reply to  ferdberple
January 15, 2015 7:35 am

@ 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.

JJM Gommers
January 15, 2015 1:32 am

This is worthless, incompetence.

Doug UK
Reply to  JJM Gommers
January 15, 2015 3:16 am

Agree totally – but it does indicate the motivation behind the “agenda”

Reply to  Doug UK
January 15, 2015 6:43 am

…at least for those clueless enough to not already know that…..

Mr. J
January 15, 2015 1:35 am

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…

Reply to  Mr. J
January 15, 2015 2:28 am

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
January 15, 2015 6:15 am

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.

Just an engineer
Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 15, 2015 10:45 am

“inadequate data to make a judgement” Humf, never stopped them before!

Paul Nevins
January 15, 2015 1:35 am

Bolivia? what the heck makes them think Bolivia is higher risk?

Reply to  Paul Nevins
January 15, 2015 8:51 am

Agree! Laughable ranking. Certainly not sea rise.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Paul Nevins
January 15, 2015 8:53 am

A leftist president.

John M. Ware
January 15, 2015 1:38 am

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.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  John M. Ware
January 15, 2015 1:45 am

That’ll be easy. Just change the legend. Blue high risk, red low risk.

Reply to  John M. Ware
January 15, 2015 5:50 am

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.

Stephen Richards
January 15, 2015 1:44 am

What about Antarctica? I thought the brits said it would be the only place to live.

January 15, 2015 1:46 am

“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.
I often express hostility to the United States too. Most Australians do.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Khwarizmi
January 15, 2015 3:17 am

Whereas I often express gratitude for the loyal support of our Australian allies in our most difficult and painful endeavors. (Most Americans do.)

Reply to  Evan Jones
January 15, 2015 1:05 pm

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!

Reply to  Khwarizmi
January 15, 2015 3:25 am

Most Australians do not express hostility to USA.

Reply to  Jack
January 15, 2015 6:45 am

the informed ones do mate:-)
the sheep believe the media spin

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  Khwarizmi
January 15, 2015 9:44 pm

“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.

January 15, 2015 1:51 am

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.

Evan Jones
Reply to  TerryS
January 15, 2015 3:20 am

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.

Reply to  Evan Jones
January 15, 2015 5:50 am

…than from the mild warming we WERE experiencing until about 15-20yrs ago.
Fixed it for ya.

January 15, 2015 1:52 am

Presumably the authors are still regurgitating the “Climate change causes conflict” rubbish, not just which countries might get hotter? Extremist nonsense or non-science!

R. de Haan
January 15, 2015 2:04 am

So do you suggest climate change has become a weapon to promote the One World Agenda?
You must be kidding me.

Reply to  R. de Haan
January 15, 2015 2:27 am

Climate change is being used as a weapon.
Some of those using climate change as weapon are using it for a One World agenda.
Some of those using climate change as weapon are using it for more government controls.
Some of those using climate change as weapon are using it for the de-industrialisation of the West.
Some of those using climate change as weapon are using it for a socialist agenda.
Some of those using climate change as weapon are using it for personal gain.
Some of those using climate change as weapon are using it because of a genuine concern for the environment.
Some of those using climate change as weapon are using it because of a genuine concern for humanity.
Like any weapon, the use it is put to depends upon the motives of the person using it which means some motives will be altruistic, some will be selfish and some will be driven by an agenda.

Evan Jones
Reply to  TerryS
January 15, 2015 3:24 am

Yes. Right or wrong, both sides do it. There are always villains on either side of any conflict, even (especially?) WWII.

Reply to  R. de Haan
January 15, 2015 6:47 am

it ALWAYS WAS..Maurice strong
club of Rome

Reply to  R. de Haan
January 15, 2015 9:20 am

Get a sense of humor people, he was joking!

January 15, 2015 2:08 am

It is a guilt map obscenely used to redistribute money. Would like to know how the nations in central Africa are going to perish from sea rise.
Also notice the Australia map is least risk but our greens convinced the Labor government to have the most onerous carbon tax in the world.
Lastly, there mission to abuse CO2 and fossil fuels as vandalising the world is going to hurt those poor countries even more.
Just airheads that can only handle one idea thrust in there by slogans at a time.

January 15, 2015 2:19 am

This map was in the UK’s Daily Mail:
If you go to the Eco Experts main site. You will see that it is a Solar Panel Firm. I rest my case!

Reply to  Simon
January 15, 2015 6:05 am

do your research. your case is full of holes. The map is taken from The ND-GAIN Index, a project of the University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index (ND-GAIN),

Reply to  ferdberple
January 15, 2015 3:21 pm

It is based on this site but not the same. For instance, the ecoexperts have Botswana and South Africa as different colors, whereas this one is the same. However, ecoexperts have probably lifted their map from the Notre Dame map and simplified it. After all, the “ecoexperts” are just a solar panel shopping site, as explained here.

Mike T
January 15, 2015 2:19 am

It would seem the blue-grey countries, Western Sahara (well, not actually a country, a disputed region annexed by Morocco), Somalia and N Korea may be “Insufficient data”, although as others have pointed out they is no key for that colour. Laughable that West Papua is at less risk than PNG, perhaps because of its annexation by Indonesia; the lefties have strangely given in on that one.

son of mulder
January 15, 2015 2:37 am

So the message is, move to Greenland, as there is plenty of space and least at risk from climate change.

Dodgy Geezer
January 15, 2015 2:40 am

If anyone is stupid enough to think that climate change respects national boundaries, they should be interested in this map…

January 15, 2015 2:44 am

Try blowing away all the smoke & mirrors rhetoric & approach it from this angle.
I believe that carbon tax & foreign aid distribution in both US & UK goes from the middle class taxes to the political class/dictators in poor countries.
In other words, money flows from the taxpaying poor in rich countries, to the rich in poor countries.
The result ? The rich get richer & the poor get poorer. This is an undeniable trend.
Another result is the propping up of dictators friendly to the central bankster dominated US & UK in the
‘Club of dictators’ known as the United Nations.
If anyone on here is clever enough & has the time to do this, I believe an interesting correlation might well emerge.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
January 15, 2015 2:53 am

The map is as good as bad!!! Unless, you first define on what basis this is characterized in terms of climate change? For this secondly, you must define what is climate change? Risk relates to several natural factors and man induced factors that vary with location to location, region to region, country to country. We can not use blindly the type of climate classifications that were used in 40s, 50s & 60s. Take the case of India, the map includes India under 40-49 risk group but in India, the risks are quite different from north to south and east to west. East is affected by cyclonic activity, north is affected by earthquakes, etc.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Evan Jones
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
January 15, 2015 3:27 am

Dr. Reddy, welcome to this forum.
But there isn’t any increase in any kind of wind event over the last century (ACE). (And I never did buy the earthquake thesis.) Bear in mind that even the IPCC AR5 has made a severe backtrack on “extreme weather”.

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
January 15, 2015 6:17 am

there is quite a bit more detail provided at:
from a quick look at the site it appears this is not just a scribbled together map, but rather has the data publicly available for download, with many different categories of vulnerability and readiness considered.
For example, the interactive map shows that India is much less at risk for climate change today than it was in 1995.

Joe Born
January 15, 2015 3:03 am

What the map really shows–to the extent that the boys and girls who prepared it had a creditable basis for their results–is which countries are most vulnerable to climate, independently of whether it changes. That is, these are the ones whose failure to avail themselves of fossil fuel’s benefits has left them the most vulnerable to weather events of which most would happen even if all fossil-fuel use stopped tomorrow. They can transform themselves into less-vulnerable regions by using fossil fuels as the rich countries have.
And do we really think Mongolia will be harmed by a warmer, moister climate?

Evan Jones
Reply to  Joe Born
January 15, 2015 3:32 am

They will. It won’t.

Doug UK
January 15, 2015 3:21 am

It would be nice to see a similar map with an analysis of potential increased agricultural land use in the North and South – Not holding my breath though………………………..

Evan Jones
Reply to  Doug UK
January 15, 2015 3:30 am

I’m sure they exist. They just don’t make the funny papers.

January 15, 2015 3:29 am

Climate Regions All Promoting need – AKA a C.R.A.P. report.!

Evan Jones
Reply to  KenB
January 15, 2015 3:31 am

What they need is wealth. Climate mitigation, unfortunately, results in GDP mitigation.

Richard Barraclough
January 15, 2015 3:34 am

You can argue about the validity of the map, but this comment smacks of insular small-mindedness.
All of this poses an obvious question – if we accept the map at face value, why should we care about climate change?

January 15, 2015 3:41 am

Define ‘survive’? Does this mean a significant fraction of the least likely to survive all mostly die then? I smell a strong putrescent woof of self-serving wedge-politics in that little map.
i.e. Brown against pale-face, and ‘Rich’ (most indebted) against poor.
Plus I thought it was ‘game-over’ for Australia? Well waddaya know! It’s a bloomin’ miracle! And apparently China’s development will kill the world, but not China … must be the low pollution levels and complete absence of air, food or water contamination issues, and lack of live stock diseases.
Alternatively it’s another bunch of knobs gazing into a digital crystal-ball.
How would you tell?

Reply to  Unmentionable
January 15, 2015 3:42 am

Actually, I should have said, define “not survive”?

January 15, 2015 3:44 am

a map of countries they think are most at risk of climate change.

It is a new layer of ambiguity added on top of the already ambiguous term “climate change”

January 15, 2015 3:52 am

Why is equatorial Africa so much as risk? As I understand it, global warming is likely to produce greater warming in the temperate and arctic regions than the tropics.

January 15, 2015 3:56 am

It’s not a map of intensity of climate change, but ability of countries to stand it. Question is what author means by “climate change”.

January 15, 2015 3:59 am

I think they have this backwards. Since the planet is about to go into a cooling phase …
… most of the “at risk” countries will do better than those not “at risk”.

January 15, 2015 4:00 am

What a joke. Here is the real map of countries at risk from “climate change”. They are the ones covered in white ….. ice, miles deep.
The rest of the countries just deal with lower ocean levels, drier conditions, etc. Don’t worry though it will go away in 90,000 years.

Reply to  TRM
January 15, 2015 8:02 am


January 15, 2015 4:10 am

I went to the linked source to see if it defines survive and not survive, but there were only three instances of the word survive in the text, one in the Title of the article, one in the opening line, and one in the next paragraph, which says just this (my caps):
“… The map also shows that countries in the West, who are arguably most responsible for CAUSING climate change, are less vulnerable and better prepared, making them most likely to SURVIVE the SEVERE IMPACTS of climate change. …”
So it’s cheap catastroph-AGW propaganda and mischief-making again. But heavens to Betsy! Why?
“… The Eco Experts is the leading Solar Panel Comparison Website in the United Kingdom …”
Nope, no self-serving BS agenda there.

Reply to  Unmentionable
January 15, 2015 6:21 am
January 15, 2015 4:11 am

I don’t understand the point of saying “why should we care?” while looking at a map of some of the world’s most impoverished countries, or of countries that are clearly and obviously friends (most of Latin America/Caribbean) etc. The last remark in the article plays into the alarmists’ worst stereotypes about skeptics.
Who cares about those countries anyway? I’m betting that quite a lot of us do, some of us even have family and second homes in some of those countries.

M Courtney
January 15, 2015 4:22 am

Why should we care about our enemies?
Because they are people too.
The interesting thing here is that links to he world’s largest economy boost the local economies and thus resilience to disaster (AGW or otherwise).
It is not that we can weaponise climate change.

Reply to  M Courtney
January 15, 2015 5:08 am

“Why should we care about our enemies?
Because they are people too.”
Try telling that to the guys that defend our country.
But I’d tread lightly, Obama’s ROE have them pretty ticked off.

Walt D.
January 15, 2015 4:29 am

What a silly map. You may as well produce a map of airports at risk if pigs had wings and started to fly.

January 15, 2015 4:36 am

They told me Greenland was going to melt and Australia was going to burn up.
Somehow now they are both Utopia…wtf?

Gary Pearse
January 15, 2015 4:55 am

“Why should we care”
Look folks, it was a joke, okay? Eric, put a sarc tag for the sensitive ones. Frequent visitors to WUWT know Eric is a very caring person.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 15, 2015 6:28 am

People needed a sarc tag? It was dripping with sarcasm. Maybe it was just me and my cynical nature that gets it then.

January 15, 2015 5:03 am

Countries hostile to the USA? what about the UN? this is the real socialist zealot!

January 15, 2015 5:26 am

Many here have wondered why x country (say Papua New Guinea) is more at risk than y (say Northern Australia) since they are very similar geographically, thereby dismissing the map as nonsense. Well, think about it. Richer countries with strong institutions would be able to cope much better with any kind of adverse event. Instead of looking at this as a map of climate risk, I look at it as one that shows the ability to cope with any kind of emergency, and as such it works pretty well. And it’s no accident that all our friends are countries at low risk, because they are also affluent democracies.
I wouldn’t dismiss the high-risk countries by effectively saying, like Eric, screw ’em, they are not our friends anyway. Failed states and countries at risk of humanitarian catastrophes have a way of biting us in the rear, with civil wars, famines, insurgencies and jihads. It’s good to know who they are.

John West
January 15, 2015 5:28 am

So, the areas of the planet that will supposedly see the least actual change from climate change (the tropics) are the least equipped to deal with climate change; while the areas that will supposedly see the most change are well equiped to deal with it. Problem solved.

January 15, 2015 5:31 am

If this is so, why are the only places complaining about “extreme weather” and linking it to climate change in the green zones? Canada, the U.S., UK, Austrailia…
As TRM just pointed out, the only existential threat from climate would be a sudden end to the Holocene. One year, the snow never melts in Buffalo NY, next year snow storms in July in NY. THEN we will know we are in trouble.

Reply to  markopanama
January 15, 2015 6:37 am

it is only the news story that portrays extreme weather as serious. the reporters have other ideas.

January 15, 2015 6:28 am

why are the only places complaining about “extreme weather” and linking it to climate change in the green zones? Canada, the U.S., UK, Austrailia

it is because the news has turned into reality TV. They take a newscaster, stick them outside in a hurricane, and roll the cameras for a story on how extreme the weather is. Then they all step inside for a double latte espresso and a good laugh.

Tom in Florida
January 15, 2015 6:39 am

Another useless expenditure of money. It seems we see more and more of this type of fiscal waste. Apparently a group can brainstorm an idea that on the surface would sound good in a grant request but in reality just provides more bs.
An old saying was clearly meant for climatologists
BS – bullsh*t
MS – more of the same
PHD – pile it higher and deeper

patrick healy
January 15, 2015 6:46 am

TerryS and others,
As a practicing Catholic I do try to have compassion for all mankind.
What I refuse to accept is the Marxist corruption of my faith by institutions like Notra Dame, who published this drivel, and our supreme pontiff who apparently aquiests.
I would urge – even implore – any contributors on Anthony’s site to read -“http/” (without the quotes).
It is a frightening expose of the greatest scientific scam of all time.
The involvement of the Catholic church in this fraud is particularly gauling for me in my twilight years.
Please keep up the good fight for truth and the integrity of science.

Phil R
January 15, 2015 6:55 am

WTF is Mongolia at risk of? and after all the scare of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and all the droughts, flooding rains, flooding droughts, and whatever in Australia, it’s nice to see that these are two of the countries least at risk.

Reply to  Phil R
January 15, 2015 4:09 pm

During the last glaciation the Gobi desert was 2-3 times its current size and encompased all of Mongolia. So it is in danger of climate change, just not the type the authors are thinking of. When (not if) our little inter-glacial is over it will slowly go back to being to dry for man nor beast to survive in.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 15, 2015 6:56 am

How odd. For the most part,the “risk” of climate change appears inversely proportional to the per-capita energy usage. Maybe they’re on to something:
This is my first attempt at embedding a graphic. If above doesn’t work, try this link.

Old Man of the Forest
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 16, 2015 5:02 am

Exactly that.
Those countries with healthy established economies built on fossil fuel will survive.
This shows the Malthusian stupidity of trying to deny the poorer countries from developing their natural resources to catch up.

January 15, 2015 7:00 am

Something the West must watch for: the Risk of Climate Change increases exponentially if a country allows newspapers to publish cartoons about Mohammed.

Phil R
Reply to  wws
January 15, 2015 7:22 am

I think the risk of your hat size changing is more likely. 🙂

January 15, 2015 7:05 am

And we will subsidize the slash and burn CO2 emitters in the rain forests so CO2 will continue to rise for sure.

Reply to  Resourceguy
January 15, 2015 4:11 pm

While it is part of it there is no way to match the roll out of one coal burning plant a week by China for CO2 output. My plants and plants everywhere would like to say thanks to China but could you burn the coal cleanly so all the real pollutants are removed? Just CO2 is all the plants want.

January 15, 2015 7:16 am

The risk portrayed in this map is poorly represented by colour.
What it actually shows is the hoped for and predicted redistribution of wealth (green) from the developed fossil fuel using country’s with electricity networks to those with bugger all power networks and very little development (red).

January 15, 2015 7:18 am

Is it a coincidence that most of the “safe” countries are also the most industrialized?

Eustace Cranch
January 15, 2015 7:24 am

Related: I wonder what rgbatduke thinks about the new “call to prayer” policy on his campus…

Gunga Din
January 15, 2015 7:37 am

I thought Global Warming was melting the Greenland glaciers. That would certainly be a change. How can Greenland be one the least at risk?

Reply to  Gunga Din
January 15, 2015 8:00 am

When they can grow barley in Greenland again, in sufficient quantities to feed livestock and make beer like the Vikings did one thousand years ago, then it will be a paradise once more. … at least for folks with a Medieval lifestyle who are currently liviing.

January 15, 2015 7:39 am

Yes I am sure the populations of Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan when they wake up, have as the last thing on their mind terrorism, civil war, drones from the United States, crime, crumbling infrastructure, destroyed economies and violent death around every corner. I mean their real concern is the climate changing. If a drone is sending missiles into your neighborhood, or a warlord decapitates a member of your family, what you really need to know is whether combined land and sea surface temperature has gone up 1 hundredths of a degree or 3 hundredths of a degree since 2007.
Certified GWA. Global Warming Absurdium.

Robert of Ottawa
January 15, 2015 7:46 am

Looks like a map of third world countries and various other basket cases. As someone else pointed out, these would be “at risk” if the weather remained the same.

UK Sceptic
January 15, 2015 7:47 am

The earth has experienced constant climate change for over four billion years and it will continue to experience climate change for the next four billion years. In poor countries as well as rich ones. Anyone who believes they have the power to control climate by limiting atmospheric plant food, thereby impoverishing us all, and that we should waste trillions trying is not only crazy but inhuman.

January 15, 2015 7:49 am

The may hate the USA but they sure do love our greenbacks…..

January 15, 2015 7:56 am

The real question is, when will Al Gore buy a condo in Greenland, Scandinavia, or Australia?

January 15, 2015 8:07 am

Actually given the prevalent left leaning politics of alarmists I’m surprised that countries that are the most Marxist and hostile to western values don’t have greatest chance of survival. That Cuba for example isn’t being propped up as a paragon of climate virture is stunning.

January 15, 2015 8:08 am

Let me guess the green countries are supposed to give money to the red countries.

Reply to  Elmer
January 15, 2015 8:22 am

Interesting how the countries most at risk are also the largest emitters of CO2.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Elmer
January 15, 2015 10:46 am

Hmmm ….. I wonder if some of those ocean CO2 plumes are the last remnants of Atlantis? And they’re not on the risk map because they’re already gone? The first victims of CAGW! 😎

January 15, 2015 8:17 am

Yeah, the countries in red and orange, are those that the Europeans have yet to rule…. completely! Then it will go to green. When a totalitarian socialist rule is introduced under the guise of democracy then it will be o.k

Peter Jones
January 15, 2015 8:22 am

I’m feeling guilty for “Climate Privilege!!”

Miguel Sanchez
January 15, 2015 8:23 am

This looks like a map of GDP per capita, standard of living, HDI or some other measure of prosperity. The climate risk must have been a tiny little factor in the risk evaluation. Look at sub-Sahara Africa where the climate is almost identical climate, nevertheless business-friendly and prospering Botswana is the only green spot inbetween all the ailing countries with identical climate but leftist governments.
So the correlation between foes/allies with high/low risk is no coincidence.
The losers have always blamed the US for their misery.

Keith Willshaw
January 15, 2015 8:29 am

The correct inference from this map is that to be safe from climate change you must develop your economy.
How else could the Malaysian part of Borneo be different from the Indonesian section ?
In sub saharan Africa the safest places to be are those with developed economies like South Africa and Botswana.
You dont need a PhD to know poor people are less able to cope with disasters than their richer counterparts.

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
January 15, 2015 8:38 am

Precisely Keith Willshaw. Industrialization and globalization are the two most powerful factors in lifting people out of poverty. Chris Patten analyzes this at length in his book ‘What Next?’

January 15, 2015 8:31 am

According to this map the biggest risk factor for adverse climate impacts is having a black or brown skin.

January 15, 2015 8:46 am

Coming from Canada, I am deeply disturbed, that we did not get the “warming”, that we were promised. We are still up here, freezing our darned butts off! (Can’t wait to get my calendar!) He he!

Robert W Turner
Reply to  1957chev
January 15, 2015 10:57 am

Maybe if you stare at the global temperature anomaly graphs from the IPCC you will feel warmer. Seems to work for the cultists.

Robert Wykoff
January 15, 2015 9:03 am

At the risk of stating the Un-PC obvious, according to this map it looks to me that if you are white or asian you are ok, but it you are brown, black, or muslim you are pretty much screwed

G. Karst
January 15, 2015 9:58 am

And here I was thinking, that the greening of Africa, would be a good thing!? Omg. GK

January 15, 2015 10:47 am

As an aside, but really more intriguing, I am only browsing this site – no other tabs or windows open – and my spam/virus software (Avira) is fighting off many Trojan horses. Metjhinks we are under attack.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 15, 2015 11:02 am

I agree, something is strange with WUWT lately. TrendMicro is not warning of any malware but Microsoft services is saying there are certificate errors and is having some other issues with the site this week.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
January 15, 2015 12:17 pm

Also got the certificate challenge, but there isn’t one – no SSL
Time for malwarebytes all around – not an ad, there’s a free version

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 15, 2015 4:42 pm

I had trouble earlier with comments not posting. It seems to be ok now.

January 15, 2015 10:52 am

What a despicable post.
It is the governments of these countries that you consider to be your “enemies”.
The rest of the population are human beings like the rest of us. And deserve all the help possible to pull them up to our standard of living.
In the last few months much has been said on wuwt about how the green agenda will impoverish the impoverished and this disgusting green conspiracy should be halted. Now all of a sudden these people you were so worried about should be thrown to the wolves man, woman, and child.
I am truly sadden by such an attitude (I’m alright jack! Bu**er everyone else!) shown by the author and many of the posters.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  SergeiMK
January 15, 2015 11:19 am

You seem to be thoroughly confused. It’s not wolves, but rather man-bear-pig, that is the threat.

Reply to  SergeiMK
January 15, 2015 11:20 am

Sergei –
In my state of Vermont, the loonies are preparing to impose carbon taxes and subsidies to bulldoze more of our ridge lines and erect wind deals that don’t work and will require natural gas back-up.
OK, now they’ve got my money and my neighbors.
I don’t believe for one moment that those green backs are headed to Nigeria. Why would they give away the money? They are NOT generous.

Miguel Sanchez
Reply to  SergeiMK
January 15, 2015 1:40 pm

Would you give money to someone who is blaming you for all of his problems and openly threatens you like the thousands or maybe millions of people in those countries shouting “death to USA” ?
This is not the first map which shows that a developed economy is the best guard against any kind of risk. Giving unconditioned money to poor countries has kept them poor for decades.
You better don’t try to offer them something else than cash like economic advice or attach conditions to the donations. Africans think you are trying to colonize their continent, Arabs claim you’re a Zionist or Israeli spy and South American’s tell you to go back to the ‘Empire’ if you tell them what to do.
Even humanitarian help is often found conspicious and only accepted when the desaster already happened.
The green’s way of destroying our own economy is insane and dosn’t help anybody.
So what else is on the table?

Reply to  SergeiMK
January 15, 2015 5:20 pm

It’s not only despicable, but incredibly narrow-minded and short-sighted. One should ask, why are these countries “hostile”, and why do terrorist cells form in these countries? It’s because some people are desperate and feel taken advantage of or ignored by the “industrialized west.” Religion is then used by some to incite this distrust, resentment, and even hatred. I suggest a book called “The Prosperity Agenda,” by Soderberg and Katulis, which outlines how to build relationships with these countries by helping them prosper.

Reply to  SergeiMK
January 16, 2015 3:58 am

Ethiopia is a threat to the US of A? I don’t think so. Most people there worry more about feeding themselves for a day, and many don’t. Strangely, some of the poorest people I’ve seen there live in makeshift huts, made from items such as sacks that once contained grains supplied by…the US of A during the 1980’s famine!!!

Doug Proctor
January 15, 2015 11:03 am

On what basis? [Tropics] have least change. Bet this BS refers to danger of ” climate-induced war”.
Doesn’t look like temperature or sealevel rise threat.

January 15, 2015 11:08 am

I see something interesting and ironic in this map. Those countries most deemed at risk are the most likely to survive in an economic- technologic crash. During the depression of 1930 and WW2 people living in remote places with weak governments did not notice much change. Their population was in balance with their support infrastructure. They were basically living off the grid in a non monetarised existence as they had for most of time.
Right after WW2, I went with my father to a very remote place in the central Andes. An old man in his nineties or older asked my father if those people up north were still killing and destroying each other. He stumbled around a bit for an answer, and finally said yes. My father later told me he was not certain of which instance of destruction the old man was talking about.
The reason for the visit to the remote places was a yearly health check and delivery of pharmaceuticals for residents of remote places. The people in the remote places were in better health and nutrition than their counterparts that visited the clinics in the large cities.

January 15, 2015 11:19 am

You mean all that hype with the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” with the North Atlantic currents is now passe. How else can you explain North Europe and the North Sea area with such shining scores ?

January 15, 2015 11:52 am

Not one Govn’t or person in the “non-green” areas of this map are the least bit “worried” about “climate change”. None! Finding dinner for the family, that day, sure! Of course that cost has been exaserbated by corrupt Govn’ts and all the usual “climate scams” so much so that most people CANNOT afford to buy enough food for a day!

Kevin Kilty
January 15, 2015 12:00 pm

So Netherlands and Greenland, to pick two examples, have low probability of severe consequences according to this map. Yet, the bleating I hear is that the Netherlands are more than a third below sea level already and Greenland will melt away and become a large lake. Why does a rational person tend to ignore work of this sort?

January 15, 2015 1:05 pm

How were these maps made? Is there a single fact or data point even mentioned in the making of them?

January 15, 2015 1:22 pm

Countries with a low CO2 output seem to be at the greatest risk! Those countries, which are at risk on the map, are mainly at risk from their low standard of economic development or political and social stability. The weather would be the least of their worries. It is definitely drawn from some political-economic source as ferdberple says.

Gunga Din
Reply to  ntesdorf
January 15, 2015 2:20 pm

Elmer upstream brought in the satellite CO2 map. ( ) It seems that Nature trumps coal plants in in CO2 production.
(Oh Gosh! Lew is going to put out a paper that says efficient energy production is a conspiracy against all the “lesser” nations!)

January 15, 2015 1:24 pm

Interesting that the island of New Guinea has a distinct risk boundary between it and Papua. Maybe there is a sky high cloud barrier there. Obviously man made as the straight boundary implies.
May make a great tourist attraction!

January 15, 2015 2:21 pm

UK and Australia has the supposed lowest risk. And at least the UK, of tiny comparative size, has decided that it should lead the way in trying to save the rest of the world by shooting itself in the foot. Lol. Kudos to Australia now though!

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 16, 2015 3:48 am

Not so fast. Australia is only ~18 months or so away from a federal election. I see the LNP and Abbott being ousted in favour of an ALP/Green coalition, and with an assortment of bullcarp green/carbon taxes.

January 15, 2015 3:05 pm

Eric Worrall reads the graph wrongly.
Now look at the pattern of vulnerability.
Why is Mongolia more vulnerable than Russia or China?
Why is Haiti more vulnerable than Guatemala & El Salvador, which in turn are more vulnerable than Mexico, which in turn is more vulnerable than the USA?
Why is Zimbabwe more vulnerable than Botswana?
Why is Burma more vulnerable than Thailand?
The answer is that climate change vulnerability is related to economic development, not to regional climate change. It is the same as vulnerability to earthquakes. Economically failed states – due to conflict and/or oppressive governments – are most vulnerable to economic shocks.
The most populous country with a high risk is India. In fact it has more people than the 50+ nations of Africa, or nearly twice the population of the OECD – the rich nations club. It is determined not to constrain the rapid growth in emissions if it means sacrificing the rapid economic growth that is pulling people out of poverty. Even if climate change is real, this is the most sensible policy, rather than climate mitigation. I explain more at my blog.

Reply to  manicbeancounter
January 15, 2015 8:15 pm

Note the link given to see who created the silly map, it’s perverse blah-blah produced by a company that compares solar panels, in the UK.

Proud Skeptic
January 15, 2015 4:19 pm

Funny…the areas that will be in trouble are the ones that are already in trouble either due to already marginally inhabitable conditions and/or tribalism and corrupt governments.
In most cases, “no change” in climate would cause all of the same problems.

Ulric Lyons
January 15, 2015 6:22 pm

“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 these regions will effected adversely through the next decade because of weak solar activity.

January 15, 2015 11:14 pm

This is by far the least informed and most jingoistic post I have ever seen on this sight. It would be disappointing even if it wasn’t so utterly bigoted and ignorant of geopolitics.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  Doug
January 16, 2015 4:32 am

Well said Doug. I wonder if it represents a cross-section of the readership, or just the those who comment

January 16, 2015 4:03 am

Frankly, they only got themselves to blame… the poor people should have invested more heavily in coal-fired electricity output, air-conditioning units, and a free-market capitalist philosophy (like wot we got) and they could have been just as green as us and less shitty-brown coloured. Wait a minute…. more green…????…think i saw a pussy cat!

more soylent green!
January 16, 2015 10:09 am

It looks to me like the more industrialized and wealthy a nation is, the less the risk. Some people look at this and cry “unfair.” Others look at this and say “Let’s help make the poor nations wealthier.”
The former type believes there is only so much wealth to go around. if one nation gets a bigger slice of the pie, then somebody else just gets a sliver. The latter type (the non-Marxists) know that wealth is not limited. Economic growths creates a bigger pie.

Kiwi Gary
January 17, 2015 12:34 am

I have recently heard African reasonably educated people say that there is a belief about in their area that combating climate change by de-industrialisation is just a method by the rich “West” to prevent them from improving their lot by getting on to the industrialisation bandwagon like China has.

%d bloggers like this: