Just as we all could figure out a long time ago from your posts, BoobyBobNutJob, you wouldn't know science if it bit you.
25 Devastating Effects Of Climate Change
Business Insider
2.) Hundreds of millions of people will be forced to move by 2050.
International Displacement Monitering Centre - "98% of all displacement in 2012 was related to climate- and weather-related events," according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center.
Climate change may become the biggest driver of displaced people, according to António Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
In 2008, 36 million people were displaced by natural disasters. At least 20 million of those people were driven from their homes by disasters related to climate change, like drought and rising sea level, Guterres said.
He anticipates that countries in the Southern Hemisphere will be most affected by displacement in the future. If this happens, "not only states, but cultures and identities will be drowned," Guterres said at a 2009 conference.
The Internal Organization for Migration estimates that 200 million people by 2050 could be forced to leave due to environmental changes.
Even more alarming, a 2014 study published in Environmental Research Letterspredicted that sea level rise created by a temperature increase of 3 degrees C would force more than than 600 million people to find new homes.
Oh boy! More Paul Ehrlich style horse shit to try and scare the savages! Poor little trolling blunder, scared of the boogeyman! Let's see what these same asshats were saying back in the late1960's shall we! Yes! Lets! And take a look at what he wanted to do to control population....PUNISH THE BREEDERS! This ******* totalitarian asshole is the perfect little progressive..... You all probably love him so much! And what's truly funny is this idiot was just as wrong as your morons today are. 30 years from now, when the world has recovered from its collective insanity they will be laughing at you like we laugh at him. "The original edition of
The Population Bomb began with this statement:
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate ...[13] Ehrlich argued that the human population was too high already, and that while the level of disaster could be mitigated, humanity could not prevent severe famines, the spread of disease, social unrest, and other negative consequences of overpopulation. However, he argued that societies must take strong action to curb population growth in order to mitigate future disasters both ecological and social. In the book Ehrlich presented a number of "scenarios" detailing possible future events, some of which have been held up as examples of errors in the years since. Of these scenarios, Ehrlich has said that although, "we clearly stated that they were not predictions and that 'we can be sure that none of them will come true as stated,’ (p. 72) – their failure to occur is often cited as a failure of prediction. In honesty, the scenarios were way off, especially in their timing (we underestimated the resilience of the world system). But they did deal with future issues that people in 1968 should have been thinking about." Ehrlich further states that he stands behind the central thesis of the book, and that its message is as apt today as it was in 1968.
[11]
Ehrlich's views on the situation have evolved over time, and he has presented a number of different proposed solutions. However, he always has been a strong advocate of government intervention into
population control.[
citation needed]
In Population Bomb he wrote, "We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail. We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control."[13] Voluntary measures he has supported include the easiest possible availability of birth control and abortions. He was not opposed to mandatory population control if necessary.[citation needed] In 1967 he had expressed his belief that aid should only be given to those countries that were not considered to be "hopeless" to feed their own populations.[14]"Paul R. Ehrlich - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
[/URL]
[/URL]
