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.
So do you suggest climate change has become a weapon to promote the One World Agenda?
You must be kidding me.
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.
Yes. Right or wrong, both sides do it. There are always villains on either side of any conflict, even (especially?) WWII.
it ALWAYS WAS..Maurice strong
club of Rome
Get a sense of humor people, he was joking!
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.
This map was in the UK’s Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2908213/How-country-cope-climate-change-Map-reveals-best-worst-places-live-planet-warms-up.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
If you go to the Eco Experts main site. You will see that it is a Solar Panel Firm. I rest my case!
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),
http://index.gain.org/tiles/1.0.0/gain-2013/2/1/2.png
http://index.gain.org/
Ferd
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.
http://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/#/1
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.
So the message is, move to Greenland, as there is plenty of space and least at risk from climate change.
If anyone is stupid enough to think that climate change respects national boundaries, they should be interested in this map…
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.
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
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”.
there is quite a bit more detail provided at:
http://index.gain.org/
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.
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?
They will. It won’t.
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………………………..
I’m sure they exist. They just don’t make the funny papers.
Climate Regions All Promoting need – AKA a C.R.A.P. report.!
What they need is wealth. Climate mitigation, unfortunately, results in GDP mitigation.
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?
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?
Again.
Actually, I should have said, define “not survive”?
It is a new layer of ambiguity added on top of the already ambiguous term “climate change”
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.
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”.
I think they have this backwards. Since the planet is about to go into a cooling phase …
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/the-sun-and-solar-physicists-go-quiet/
… most of the “at risk” countries will do better than those not “at risk”.
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.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicemap.jpg
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.
+1
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.
Look here instead for the true source:
http://index.gain.org/tiles/1.0.0/gain-2013/3/4/4.png
http://index.gain.org/
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.
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.
“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.
What a silly map. You may as well produce a map of airports at risk if pigs had wings and started to fly.
They told me Greenland was going to melt and Australia was going to burn up.
Somehow now they are both Utopia…wtf?
“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.
People needed a sarc tag? It was dripping with sarcasm. Maybe it was just me and my cynical nature that gets it then.
Countries hostile to the USA? what about the UN? this is the real socialist zealot!