Warmies Rely On Invading Hordes To Amp Up Hysteria

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Hysteria ... er, Change released another report on Friday that raised the fright factor considerably.

This time around, IPCC warned that coming climate-related disasters would lead to a worldwide exodus of Biblical proportions -- heck, dogs and cats living together proportions -- with millions upon millions of people fleeing their flea-bitten backwaters and flooding into the nice places where we live.

Summarizing the report, der Speigel wrote:

Rich industrial nations, after decades of pouring more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than poor countries, can adjust to the changes if they invest enough money; but the poorest parts of Central America, Asia and Africa will suffer harshly from flooding and drought. This conventional wisdom in the climate controversy has opened a human-rights debate: Now it's not just globalization, closed markets, or the consequences of colonialism that have robbed the poor of their opportunities -- it's also greenhouse gases. Will coming decades see millions of "climate refugees" flowing north from the floodplains and deserts of Africa or Latin America?

There are about 10 million things wrong with that paragraph, but we'll just focus on the global warming/masses of immigrants section.

How nicely IPCC structured this: Give 'em a dose of guilt, then scare the pazooties out of them with images of uneducated hordes invading our comfortable lives. Have they got all the bases covered? Let's check: Europe is invated by Africans, Russia by Asians, the U.S. by Latin Americans. Well done! Beautiful!

Some experts think they're right on:

Oxford-based ecologist Norman Myers argues ... the number [of refugees] could soar to as high as 200 million within 50 years. "These people see no alternative to seeking asylum elsewhere, as hazardous as the attempt (to get there) might be," he says.

Except Myers' conclusion is ridiculous and suffers from the common flaw all the Warmie hysteria: They think globally, not humanly.

Take Bangeledesh -- it's been subject to floods and monsoons forever and people just stay there. That's why others disagree with IPCC and Myers.

Stephen Castles, at Oxford's International Migration Institute, contradicts these horror-movie scenarios. "Myers and others simply take the climate predictions at face value and look at how many people live in the areas that will be flooded," says the author of "The Age of Migration," a now-standard text. This method, says Castles, leads to exaggerated refugee estimates.

He says it's more accurate to research how people actually respond in a given area to environmental disaster, war, or widespread poverty. "What we see is something else -- immigration is generally not the main strategy." When living conditions do get unbearable, people also tend to move within their own countries -- only rarely do they cross national borders.

It's true in Bagaledesh, just as it's true in New Orleans. It was true in Japan with the Kobe earthquake and in the Philippines with the Pinatubo volcano.

Also, Myers responds as if human will and ability were nonexistant. No consideration is given for levees or irrigation systems or new syles of architecture. More intreguing still is the idea that citizens in places like Bangeledesh will not just change their infrastructure, but also their governments, out of frustration with their inability to overcome corruption and ineptness and truly serve the needs of their people.

You won't find such optimism from the Warmies, though. Disaster and catastrophe are their game, so they will continue to underestimate human capacity and overestimate disaster.