by ecorazzicontributor
Categories: People.

climate refugeesI had the honor of covering the much “buzzed about” film Climate Refugees, the Q & A that followed and the after party. If you thought an Inconvenient Truth was eye opening, you won’t believe how this movie has created a face that forces you to acknowledge the real devastation and who is actually affected by climate change. There are currently about 25 million “climate refugees” (people who have had to move from their homeland because of lack of natural resources.)

Some of the images and narration are haunting: A group of children swimming in 3 feet of water…where their front yard used to be. A grandmother explaining the devastation of trying to find her family after a natural disaster. The narrators spoke about cultural immersion issues for the families that are lucky enough to be moved to nearest landmass as well as the unlucky grandmothers that will have to swim with their families to safety that aren’t so lucky. None of the people on islands being submerged by the rising water levels want to migrate from their homes to the nearest coastal areas, but the water forces them to. As well as none of the families that live in now barren deserts want to become nomadic in search of water.

If you still don’t think global warming is real, Lester Brown, Nancy Pelosi and former presidential hopeful John Kerry, along with many educated narrators, elaborated on how the affects are very real for these quickly dying cultures. Representatives from the United Nations and other facets of the government narrated that many people from around the world may opt to migrate to the United States, Canada and Europe, which creates many other concerns for national security and over population.

During the Q&A Michael Nash, Stephen Nemesh and a few others that powered the film spoke more about the issues for people that live on islands and on coasts that are becoming submerged by water because of global warming as well as people who live in areas where there water supply has disappeared. Near the end of the panel discussion, to everyone’s surprise, Michael called Senator Barbara Boxer to the stage and she encouraged everyone to write their local Congressman and become a part of the solution for a problem that is a global concern.

Following the Q&A was the Climate Refugees/Flaunt magazine party. Michael Nash spoke with friends and myself about how his fear is that a movie like this still has the possibility of falling through the cracks and not receive distribution, which would be devastating. College professor Ukumbwa Sauti, M. Ed. suggested that Michael try to introduce the film to colleges and high schools as an educational tool. The younger generations are the ones that will make changes, because they are the ones who will be affected by them. Stephen Nemesh reiterated from the movie that we better f*cking hope humans cause global warming, because that is the only hope we have to be able to slow it down and save these people.

  • ddpalmer

    “…we better f*cking hope humans cause global warming, because that is the only hope we have to be able to slow it down and save these people.”

    Take that hope and a quarter and you can make a phone call. The IPCC ‘science’ has more holes than Swiss cheese.

    I don’t know of anybody who denies that the climate is changing and that there has been warming since the mid-1800’s. But there is no empirical science that shows this increase is caused in whole or in part by humans and CO2. There are theories but no proof. There are computer models which don’t include many variables that are know to affect the climate and which haven’t been able to correctly predict anything when compared to the actual climate.

    • WendyZ

      So are you suggesting that we just sit and let it all happen? I would prefer that we try to figure out how to slow it down while we find new ways of survival.
      I kind of like “living” and seeing my children and grandchildren “living”.

    • ddpalmer

      No, I am suggesting that we do something that will actually do some good.

      Cutting CO2 emissions by cap & trade or a carbon tax will not slow or stop any climate change. All they will do is depress the whole world economy, especially these islands which rely on tourism for almost their whole economy. You think people will still be flying there when their paychecks shrink due to carbon taxes and when plane tickets double or more? I don’t think so. So not only won’t the climate change be ‘fixed’ but the money to really do something won’t be available.

      Spend money to shore up the islands or dredge sand and build up the islands. Because the problem isn’t rising sea level. The rate of sea level rise has actually decreased in the last decade, but coral atolls actually rise with the sea level. It is how they formed in the first place. As the land sinks below them or the ocean rises around them, the coral grows up and the atoll stays above sea level. The problem is erosion caused by building roads, hotels and airports which prevent the replenishment of the sand that builds the atoll. This is made worse by over fishing of the species (mostly parrot fish) which grind the dead coral into sand.

  • Dougetit

    Global Warming or what they call now Climate Change is a scam.

    To get better informed, Google “CLIMATEGATE” along with any of the following words: GlacierGate, AmazonGate, PachauriGate/PachuriGate, FloodGate, HurricaneGate, TempGate/TemperatureGate, IceGate, DisasterGate, HimalayaGate, GoogleGate, EmailGate, GreenpeaceGate, NASAGate, SternGate, CRUGate, WikipediaGate/WikiGate, World Wildlifegate, RainForestGate, WaterGate II, Crimatologist, RussiaGate, NoaaGate, StormGate, HockeystickGate, OceanGate, PeerGate, PolarBearGate, SaharaGate, IPCCGate, WarmingGate, RainGate, GlobalWarmingGate, WeatherGate, GISSGate, YamalGate, GoreGate, NatureGate, StudentDissertationGate, HadleyGate, Crimatology, HansenGate, CopenhagenGate, JonesGate, METGate, WarmGate, Co2Gate and the most recent ChinaGate.

    It is unfortunate that you have been brainwashed to believe that this is an environmental issue. It has nothing to do with the environment and once the environmentalists’ find out that they have been fooled, they are not going to be very happy.

    • WendyZ

      Have fun trying to convince the people who are losing their islands, their homes, and trying to find new places to settle.

      That is like the rich living in their perfect little neighborhoods and denying the ghettos, the projects, the people living on the street. It isn’t in their world so therefore it must not exist.

      Real smart thinking.

    • ddpalmer

      Have you tried looking at anything that he suggested?

      Do you realize that the IPCC report is full of fiction, half-truths and lies? Numerous non peer-reviewed magazine articles that don’t even say what the IPCC says they say.

      That is the science of climate change. The ‘rich’ people you are talking about are Al Gore, Dr. Pachauri, etc. who are set to make billions off of carbon trading which won’t affect climate change but will cause the worlds economy to be depressed which will effect the poor more than any other group.

      Coral islands have been being created and destroyed for millions of years. The remenants of those that have stop growing and sunk are all over the Pacific and Indian Ocean. It is not sea level rise or climate change. It is a combination of natural cycles where some atolls stop growing and erosion cuased mostly by overdevelopement.

      The answer is to limit/control developement in combination with the same type erosion control measures that coastal communities in the US, Mexico and Southern Europe have been using for decades. Wave breaks, sand dredging, etc.

    • don miguelo

      Dougetit basically says Climate Change has nothing to do with the environment. Not exactly sure how that paradox works, but then again I am just a brainwashed greenie, he says.

      Of course are any of the sites he mentions ones that have independent, empirical, peer-reviewed studies? Could it be that propaganda happens on BOTH sides of the issue, at least?

      I have a suggestion : Google CHECKYOURSELFGATE.

      • Dougetit

        don miguelo,

        Science is a process which starts with a hypothesis, “humans are causing global warming“, to be shown true through an experiment to arrive at a theory. For instance, the sun came out today and it was warmer than yesterday when it was cloudy. Hypothesis: it is always warmer when the sun is out. The “data” is the temperature and the “method” is the observation of sunny or cloudy in relation to the data. Since, on the “tested” days, it was in fact warmer with the sun out than with no sun, the hypothesis is now a theory.

        To “prove” the theory the one promoting the theory, (AGW), must provide their “data” and “methods” to the scientific community which in turn, through duplication, can repeatedly recreate the same result. The burden of proof is on the one advocating the theory. Since the original raw data, (warming global temperature records), have been destroyed, the theory is immediately proven to be false. This fact alone should have been enough to kill the AGW theory on it’s face.

        But lets take it further. With no data to “test” the theory, this leaves us only the “method” to verify. Here again, the theory falls apart when scrutinizing the scandals that have recently surfaced. The “real” scientists are the skeptics as they are an integral step in the theory proving process.

        Considering the proclaimed consequences of their theory, the crimatologists involved here should have been screaming from the rooftops for a single experiment to prove them wrong. We find, through the CRU Emails, that the opposite was the case. This should have been immediately recognized as “voodoo-science” within the scientific community, but, maybe for reasons of fame, fortune, politics, pride or power, they created convincing rhetoric which had us hoodwinked into believing otherwise.

        “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Albert Einstein

        Surprisingly, it is ironic that a film, which was produced years back, hauntingly reveals the story behind what current events have proven to be true. It’s a film that has been shouted down by the shrill voices associated with the AGW “anti-science” but has endured the test of time. If you have already seen this film, It’s worth another look for a better understanding of the “story behind the story” of the history of AGW.

        And here is an example of “Real” scientists at work…

        I suggest you educate YourselfGate..

    • ddpalmer

      He seems to me to be saying that climate change has nothing to do with CO2. And the main stream media in at least the UK and India are all over it.

      He didn’t mention any sites. He suggesting performing your own search and seeing what sites come up.

      “…independent, empirical, peer-reviewed studies” you mean like the UN’s IPCC report? There are now well over a dozen major parts of the IPCC report that have been found to not be based on “independent, empirical, peer-reviewed studies”. Is there spin and propaganda on both sides? Yes, so do your own research. That was all he suggested.

      If you still think blaming CO2 is the way to go, that’s great, it is your choice. But if CO2 isn’t the problem then in 5 or 10 or 20 years when climate change continues and the world’s economy has been seriously damaged, the time and money to adapt to the real problems won’t be there.

      The world has been slowly changing to less carbon based energy sources. Subsidies to encourage this change and R&D into new and improved methods will help everybody without serious economic damage. And all the money saved and extra money available from a vibrant economy can be used to deal with the real problems through for example, irrigation systems, desalinization plants, increased recycling, erosion control, mass transit systems, etc.

  • Dawn Gordon

    I see some real winners here commenting

  • ddpalmer

    Yeah. Some people just make comments with no content just lame attempts to belittle others. Don’t you hate when they do that?

    I guess it makes them feel superior or something. You know brings a little light into their otherwise drab lives.

  • don miguelo

    I love the double-standard!
    “He seems to me to be saying that climate change has nothing to do with CO2” ddpalmer says, a rare example of going out on a limb for someone in a post, yet you call me out when I said “the sites he mentions”, with your “He didn’t mention any sites. He suggesting performing your own search and seeing what sites come up”. What, no seeing what I mean rather than how I said it for don miguelo? Even when, on the Climate Change is a scam theme, dougetit literally states: “you have been brainwashed to believe that this is an environmental issue. It has nothing to do with the environment”? NOTHING? You aren’t calling him on that?! He gets the benefit of the doubt! I see how you are.

    And then insult to injury, you put words in my mouth with “you mean like the UN’s IPCC report?” Again, didn’t happen to dougetit, unless it was in his favor. But to answer that : NO I DID NOT MEAN THE UN’S IPCC REPORT, for the record. I did my own research (thank you very much) and did not cite them directly due to it. Are you insinuating that you have a problem with “independent, empirical, peer-reviewed studies?” That’s all I see you asking for on several other topics, lest unwary, suggestible post readers think whaling is wrong just because or eating a cheeseburger could kill you 35 years earlier than a vegan, for instance. We all don’t want that to happen! Also, “do your own research” is different than doing your own research with someone else’s suggestions for keywords, I think.

    I do agree we must find the root(s) of the problem here, and your last paragragh of points in that post is a great step in the right direction. (Will you find a point of contention with that, I wonder)!

    And believe you me, I hope to death that all the climate scientists are wrong cuz Earth is where we friggin live, even if most of us haven’t noticed that yet…

    • ddpalmer

      No you have me all wrong. When I can understand someone’s logic and believe I understand their thought process, then I can ‘read between the lines’ to what I think they meant. But since I don’t understand what your point is I can’t ‘read between the lines’ of your argument and therefore have to go with exactly what is written and/or ask for clarification.

      Which is why I wrote “you mean like the UN’s IPCC report?” I asked if that is what you where refer to, that is not putting words in your mouth it is asking for clarification of what you are referring to.

      And no I don’t have a problem with “independent, empirical, peer-reviewed studies”. And if you can point me to one that proves CO2 added to the earth’s atmosphere by humans can explain global warming I will be more than happy to read it. But there are “independent, empirical, peer-reviewed studies” that show CO2 levels over 20 times the current levels when the earth was in the worst ice age in its entire history, and other “independent, empirical, peer-reviewed studies” that show over the past 600,000 years during warming periods temperature has increased before CO2 increased indicating warming causes the CO2 increase and not the other way around.

  • Dawn Gordon

    some have no intelligence to realize polar bears are suffering

  • ddpalmer

    Just how are polar bears suffering and do you think CO2 have anything to do with it?

    Oh, maybe you mean they are suffering because there population is higher than it has been in decades so there are too many of them and not enough food.

    And what can we do to help the polar bears? Short of not shooting them I don’t think there is much I can do to help. Unless you think we should be send them care packages of raw meat.

  • don miguelo

    Actually, thanks ddpalmer and dougetit for your decorum in reply to my posts. Both of you made much more clear (to me) posts than the initial ones, and I appreciate that.

    I think it’s hard to hear the whole thing is a scam, especially when it involves so much data. Most people of the world are not top scientists, presidents or credible media outlets, but when those sources tell them there can be no denial of something, it’s hard to say otherwise. We’re all bombarded with info, but when it’s got the authority of a trusted source, it’s that much harder to refute. And right or wrong, that’s been the case with the climate change subject in the past decade.

    I am not convinced either way on this issue, for the record, but I do agree that we need to live better as a species more in harmony with the Earth. All the climate change adjustments we make actually help us attain other sustainability goals.

    Also, I think this quote is funny, waaaay back in 2007):
    (Fairbanks Daily News-Miner 2007)
    Sarah Palin (Dec. 4, 2007): “I’m not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity, but I’m not going to put my head in the sand and pretend there aren’t changes.”


  • don miguelo

    Here are some sites I came across in my time with this issue. I do not claim that these “prove” anything, just that they may be good points for discussion: (you might have to type http:// in front of them as it won’t post with that on there or something).

  • Dougetit

    don miguelo,

    Remember, the NASA links in your post use THERMOMETERs for their data. These redords have been found to be bogus. Worse still, as other “Scientists” have relied on these same thermometer numbers, this taints their conclusions. The only true global temperature data you can consider accurate is the satellite record which shows that yes, temperatures have been warming at a rate of 13 one hundredths (.13) of a degree PER DECADE over the past 30 years. This is far far less than what we were told the temperatures should be doing. Worse yet for the phony AGW crowd is the fact that if you were to plot the satellite dataset starting in Januarly 1998, you woud find that the earth has actually been cooling for the past 12 years.

    A clue to what is going on at NASA would be to ask yourself why James Hansen at NASA doesn’t even use his own highly accurate (+/- .03 Deg)satellite data for his temperature graphs that are shown on the links that you provided.

    He claims that the satellites show a cooling bias. Even if we were to assume that he is correct, a bias does not have any effect on a trend.

    You won’t find any of those facts at factcheck. You can’t believe everything you read on the net. To find the truth requires more dilligent digging and reasearch. Very few people can make a living by telling people that a problem does not exist. Considering the reputations and agendas at stake, I’m not surprised to see so many inteligent people so easily fooled. But they won’t be fooled forever.. The whole AGW thing is crashing around them, though it probably won’t be for another couple of years before we can look back on all of this and say to ourselves, “How could we have been so gullible”?