Assad wasn't using chemical weapons. He was just trying to fertalize the land.
Global Warming Doom
- Thread starter AC_Exotic
- Start date
I'm still confused. Are there crop failures because of drought (lack of water) or flooding (too much water)? Saying something about sweet spots only confuses me more. Is it drought or flooding that is causing the swarm of migrants? If it's drought that would belie the notion that warming has melted the ice and raised the ocean levels, wouldn't it? Your chart says drought. But the original argument says melted ice will cause rampant flooding, driving people away. So, again, I ask: is it drought or flooding. I'm not questioning your implication that an eco disaster has caused political chaos. I'm just not understanding whether the eco disaster is the result of flooding or drought.
"Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He added, all participants in the political chaos must be "eco refugees," or this prediction doesn't apply. Again I can't stress enough, if some participants in the political chaos happen to be opportunists taking advantage of the situation, that is definitely not what I am talking about. One final time, all combatants must be eco refugees in order for my prediction to be right."
Report in the AP on June 29,1989.
Ponca Dan this isn't your most honest reply. In the Syrian case the crop failures are because of drought.
Yes, the entire Arab Spring can be blamed on crop failures and coastal flooding. Lack of freedoms, high unemployment, government corruption, sectarian conflict between the Alawi government and the Sunni citizenry, and infiltration of Islamic extremists are the direct result of crop failures and coastal flooding. F*cking global warming.
In 1982, the crop failures cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama, Syria and killed tens of thousands of people and flattened much of the city. Look it up. Those crop failures have been having conflicts with the people of Syria for quite some time.
"Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He added, all participants in the political chaos must be "eco refugees," or this prediction doesn't apply. Again I can't stress enough, if some participants in the political chaos happen to be opportunists taking advantage of the situation, that is definitely not what I am talking about. One final time, all combatants must be eco refugees in order for my prediction to be right. Brown further clarified eco refugees are alone sufficient for political chaos. If any political chaos ensues after an influx of eco refugees, but there were existing conditions that could also result in political chaos even if they had existed for some time and the political chaos follows a record setting drought, I would be hard pressed to say conclusively that the crop failures are what caused the political chaos. In fact, it is actually very hard to establish cause and effect ex post facto, which is why am making this prediction ex ante. Again, though, I should stress this prediction is only valid for political chaos that arises exclusively from eco refugees, no other factors allowed."
Report in the AP on June 29,1989.
That's actually the leader of the droughts that caused the crop failures that led to 1.5 million people fleeing urban areas of Syria that were under tight drought control.
Rare rendering of the founder of ISIS without traditional beard and garb
If he hadn't misused water, all those crops in Syrian urban centers might have survived.
Rare rendering of the founder of ISIS without traditional beard and garb
Ponca Dan, I strongly recommend you look into this particular issue. This crop failure cracked down on a Islamist uprising with broad popular support, in fact so much broad popular support the conflict lasted 8 years and displaced millions of people.
The eco refugee group? No way. Those poor folks were fleeing drought and coastal flooding too.
"Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He added, all participants in the political chaos must be "eco refugees," or this prediction doesn't apply. Again I can't stress enough, if some participants in the political chaos happen to be opportunists taking advantage of the situation, that is definitely not what I am talking about. One final time, all combatants must be eco refugees in order for my prediction to be right. Brown further clarified eco refugees are alone sufficient for political chaos. If any political chaos ensues after an influx of eco refugees, but there were existing conditions that could also result in political chaos even if they had existed for some time and the political chaos follows a record setting drought, I would be hard pressed to say conclusively that the crop failures are what caused the political chaos. In fact, it is actually very hard to establish cause and effect ex post facto, which is why am making this prediction ex ante. Again, though, I should stress this prediction is only valid for political chaos that arises exclusively from eco refugees, no other factors allowed. If there is any political chaos after 2000 that is not drought related, clearly I was wrong."
Report in the AP on June 29,1989.
Hillary Clinton was convinced that the drought in Libya was committing genocide. It's a good thing she had that drought killed, although the current drought hasn't been much better.
I'd note that the article I posted actually states that they don't receive enough annual rainfall normally to support full agriculture. So being surprised that they don't have enough rain to support agriculture seems obtuse.
Medic, this is a better tact. It wasn't drought that caused the political chaos, it was obtuse farmers.
Huh? I'm just pointing out how all these brutal droughts (and coastal floodings) have treated their people. In Iraq, the drought once gassed a bunch of Kurds. And it's weird how when one drought is defeated, more droughts of worse quality seem to move into areas once controlled by the brutal drought.
You agreed with the prediction that droughts and coastal flooding would cause eco refugees and political chaos. You pointed out Syrian refugees as an example. I've been agreeing with you since. It was a brutal drought with a history of abusing its people and groups of eco refugees from Syria and other countries that caused the political chaos and caused people to flee Syria. Your own links indicate people fled the urban croplands of Syria's urban centers to the rural areas where there's apparently more water (and less chance of coastal flooding). Then more droughts got involved, and more eco refugees came in, and there was a drought vs eco refugee war that caused the droughts (and coastal flooding) and urban crop failures to become worse causing more people to flee. Now that the drought is over, people are returning back to Syria to rebuild. I hope they don't have any more droughts. That was the worst ever.
Huh? Pointing out how several brutal droughts have treated their people and created politcal chaos and eco refugees isn't an actual point? Are you trying to say that drought is a phenomenon unique to Syria? I'd have to strongly disagree. In fact, I think we're seeing the results of drought (crop failures) (and coastal flooding) in Venezuela as I type this.
Yes. That's what caused urban Syrians to flee to rural areas. Don't tell me it was coastal flooding. Homs isn't on the coast.
WTF? This is awesome. We're seeing the entire history of Syria rewritten so pilt can prove that a 1989 prediction was correct. Where else can you get shit like this?
So dumb. Your point, stripped of sarcasm is: Bad things have happened that weren't the result of a drought so the prediction of bad things because of droughts is wrong.
You were the one that posted a picture of Syrian refugees that fled WAR and VIOLENCE to try to claim the 1989 prediction was correct and then doubled down with an article that hypothesized that global warming caused the Syrian conflict while completely ignoring Syrian history, the regimes of Assad and his father, sectarian conflict, regional unrest, and terrorist opportunists. Of course I mocked you for it. Now you're whining about being mocked?
Sorry, claiming that Syrian refugees were eco refugees and that drought was responsible for that conflict in spite of everything else we know and have known for years is deserving of a good mocking. Don't lead with your chin next time.
Well, actually it is a mostly honest reply. But I couldn't help but poke you in the ribs a little bit. It struck me as hilarious that the environmentalists have found a way to have it both ways. Clever little bastards, those environmentalists!
Sigh. Maybe this will convince you that putting all of your eggs in the climate change/eco refugee/internal migration basket based on one article is foolish.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629816301822
You seem to only seek information that confirms your biases in regards to anthropogenic climate change. Reading one article and coming to the conclusion that the evidence is strong or irrefutable is a common error people that don't know how to evaluate scientific literature make.
You're welcome.
Also assassinated Anwar Sadat; it's inscribed on his memorial in Cairo; I personally read it.
I also found this from your first link...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0068-2
Once again, you're welcome. If you pay attention, maybe I can open your eyes to the appropriate way to evaluate scientific literature like you did mine with MMT.
Oh so it's a matter of academic debate? I was shocked to open the link and see that it wasn't "is ISIS a drought? Is Venezuela a drought?" Maybe skip the childishness and get to the beef next time?
The paper concludes yes there was a record setting drought, yes at least 60,000 families were displaced but it is hard to know exactly how many, yes a Syrian government official said the drought was straining social order to a breaking point and yes a rebel cited drought as one of the contributing factors but other than that the causal evidence is scant. The authors acknowledge that the drought contributed to the civil war just to what extent is in question.
So yeah that guy in 1989 was crazy
Hmmm, I don't think that's what they actually said. Here's their own words for reference:
"In light of the above we can now return to our main questions: is there clear and reliable evidence that climate change-related drought in Syria was a contributory factor in the onset of the country's civil war?; and, if and where yes, was it as significant a contributory factor as is claimed in the existing academic and expert literature? On each step of the claimed causal chain, our answers are no. We find that there is no clear and reliable evidence that anthropogenic climate change was a factor in northeast Syria's 2006/07–2008/09 drought; we find that, while the 2006/07–2008/09 drought in northeast Syria will have contributed to migration, this migration was not on the scale claimed in the existing literature, and was, in all probability, more caused by economic liberalisation than drought; and we find that there is no clear and reliable evidence that drought-related migration was a contributory factor in civil war onset. In our assessment, there is thus no good evidence to conclude that global climate change-related drought in Syria was a contributory causal factor in the country's civil war."
Last edited:
