Thank you, Dr Nicholson, for this excellent presentation. Thank you for articulating that the arbitrary use of the term "Climate Migrant" is not descriptive enough by itself for general use in describing migration. It is vital to discern why the migration event is happening so we can effect actual change or at a minimum learn something for future reference. I hope this video can help destigmatise and stimulate conversation around the multiple reasons why people migrate. The term 'Climate Migrant' can and is being used as a catch-all phrase by governments, corporations and individuals. This is part of the broader problem of ‘Climate change’ being used as a scapegoat to cover-up irresponsible, incompetent or even worse malevolent acts. Hopefully, Dr Nicholson’s clear closing statements and responses helped to clear up the minds of the questioners in the audience who seemed to struggle with the topic. However, these questions led to an expanded discussion which for some people is helpful for clarification. Thank you Danube Institute.
Not a cohesive argument. The guy who said climate change was causing migration from California is just spewing lies and alarm like all unindentured climatologists who are political activists not scientists. Climate change generally promotes great human adaptive qualities such as innovative technology or technological deconstruction.
A brutal vivisection of the elephant in the room - I didn’t watch only listen, so I’m not sure if it was the same guy or three similar sounding gentlemen who tried to pin you down on a specific example of climate-induced migration, not appreciating even by the end of the talk that your whole point is that this is precisely the problem. I gave it some thought and concluded that perhaps an example of something that is 100% not anthropomorphic and truly is an act of God, like solar flares, could be a useful tool to explain what, by your own definition, could result in 100% not anthropomorphic migration. Ties in nicely to “what would you do about it” to which the only reasonable answer is “nothing”, but if you struggle to explain why a dam collapse is an engineering problem and not yet another example of climate change, then I don’t know what bar a coloring book and crayons is going to make your job easier. So many people in the climate debate are already on a side. Water vapor contribute over 80% to atmospheric temperature, not CO2. Modern diesels produce the least CO2 and now with modern particulate filters actually scrub the air so clean the exhaust is cleaner than the intake. Yet their being phased out, roughly around the time people are realizing a small tweak to the diesel engine’s management computer (ECU) can allow olive oil (store bought, unmodified) to be burned in the engine, and doing so further reduces harmful emissions (particularly sulphide). So who is the primary antagonist in dieselgate again? Oh yeah, the ECU, which engine manufacturers were required by law to run these testing procedures, which as a result of performing, we’re unfairly breaking the rules. If you read what engines have to do during the tests, you’d realize there is no way to do that standardized test without the engine entering a testing mode. They wanted the engine to do linear rpm ramps up and down, while emissions were being tested. Too many opinions, too few addressing fundamental problems in the formulation of various accusations. Thank you for shooting at least one bad formulation down in the talk, and thank you to the speakers for simply not getting it, showing how pernicious fundamental logical fallacies can be when they enter a debate.
A brutal vivisection of the elephant in the room - I didn’t watch only listen, so I’m not sure if it was the same guy or three similar sounding gentlemen who tried to pin you down on a specific example of climate-induced migration, not appreciating even by the end of the talk that your whole point is that this is precisely the problem. I gave it some thought and concluded that perhaps an example of something that is 100% not anthropomorphic and truly is an act of God, like solar flares, could be a useful tool to explain what, by your own definition, could result in 100% not anthropomorphic migration. Ties in nicely to “what would you do about it” to which the only reasonable answer is “nothing”, but if you struggle to explain why a dam collapse is an engineering problem and not yet another example of climate change, then I don’t know what bar a coloring book and crayons is going to make your job easier. So many people in the climate debate are already on a side. Water vapor contribute over 80% to atmospheric temperature, not CO2. Modern diesels produce the least CO2 and now with modern particulate filters actually scrub the air so clean the exhaust is cleaner than the intake. Yet their being phased out, roughly around the time people are realizing a small tweak to the diesel engine’s management computer (ECU) can allow olive oil (store bought, unmodified) to be burned in the engine, and doing so further reduces harmful emissions (particularly sulphide). So who is the primary antagonist in dieselgate again? Oh yeah, the ECU, which engine manufacturers were required by law to run these testing procedures, which as a result of performing, we’re unfairly breaking the rules. If you read what engines have to do during the tests, you’d realize there is no way to do that standardized test without the engine entering a testing mode. They wanted the engine to do linear rpm ramps up and down, while emissions were being tested. Too many opinions, too few addressing fundamental problems in the formulation of various accusations. Thank you for shooting at least one bad formulation down in the talk, and thank you to the speakers for simply not getting it, showing how pernicious fundamental logical fallacies can be when they enter a debate.
Thank you, Dr Nicholson, for this excellent presentation. Thank you for articulating that the arbitrary use of the term "Climate Migrant" is not descriptive enough by itself for general use in describing migration. It is vital to discern why the migration event is happening so we can effect actual change or at a minimum learn something for future reference. I hope this video can help destigmatise and stimulate conversation around the multiple reasons why people migrate. The term 'Climate Migrant' can and is being used as a catch-all phrase by governments, corporations and individuals. This is part of the broader problem of ‘Climate change’ being used as a scapegoat to cover-up irresponsible, incompetent or even worse malevolent acts. Hopefully, Dr Nicholson’s clear closing statements and responses helped to clear up the minds of the questioners in the audience who seemed to struggle with the topic. However, these questions led to an expanded discussion which for some people is helpful for clarification. Thank you Danube Institute.
Not a cohesive argument. The guy who said climate change was causing migration from California is just spewing lies and alarm like all unindentured climatologists who are political activists not scientists. Climate change generally promotes great human adaptive qualities such as innovative technology or technological deconstruction.
A brutal vivisection of the elephant in the room - I didn’t watch only listen, so I’m not sure if it was the same guy or three similar sounding gentlemen who tried to pin you down on a specific example of climate-induced migration, not appreciating even by the end of the talk that your whole point is that this is precisely the problem. I gave it some thought and concluded that perhaps an example of something that is 100% not anthropomorphic and truly is an act of God, like solar flares, could be a useful tool to explain what, by your own definition, could result in 100% not anthropomorphic migration. Ties in nicely to “what would you do about it” to which the only reasonable answer is “nothing”, but if you struggle to explain why a dam collapse is an engineering problem and not yet another example of climate change, then I don’t know what bar a coloring book and crayons is going to make your job easier. So many people in the climate debate are already on a side. Water vapor contribute over 80% to atmospheric temperature, not CO2. Modern diesels produce the least CO2 and now with modern particulate filters actually scrub the air so clean the exhaust is cleaner than the intake. Yet their being phased out, roughly around the time people are realizing a small tweak to the diesel engine’s management computer (ECU) can allow olive oil (store bought, unmodified) to be burned in the engine, and doing so further reduces harmful emissions (particularly sulphide). So who is the primary antagonist in dieselgate again? Oh yeah, the ECU, which engine manufacturers were required by law to run these testing procedures, which as a result of performing, we’re unfairly breaking the rules. If you read what engines have to do during the tests, you’d realize there is no way to do that standardized test without the engine entering a testing mode. They wanted the engine to do linear rpm ramps up and down, while emissions were being tested. Too many opinions, too few addressing fundamental problems in the formulation of various accusations. Thank you for shooting at least one bad formulation down in the talk, and thank you to the speakers for simply not getting it, showing how pernicious fundamental logical fallacies can be when they enter a debate.
A brutal vivisection of the elephant in the room - I didn’t watch only listen, so I’m not sure if it was the same guy or three similar sounding gentlemen who tried to pin you down on a specific example of climate-induced migration, not appreciating even by the end of the talk that your whole point is that this is precisely the problem. I gave it some thought and concluded that perhaps an example of something that is 100% not anthropomorphic and truly is an act of God, like solar flares, could be a useful tool to explain what, by your own definition, could result in 100% not anthropomorphic migration. Ties in nicely to “what would you do about it” to which the only reasonable answer is “nothing”, but if you struggle to explain why a dam collapse is an engineering problem and not yet another example of climate change, then I don’t know what bar a coloring book and crayons is going to make your job easier. So many people in the climate debate are already on a side. Water vapor contribute over 80% to atmospheric temperature, not CO2. Modern diesels produce the least CO2 and now with modern particulate filters actually scrub the air so clean the exhaust is cleaner than the intake. Yet their being phased out, roughly around the time people are realizing a small tweak to the diesel engine’s management computer (ECU) can allow olive oil (store bought, unmodified) to be burned in the engine, and doing so further reduces harmful emissions (particularly sulphide). So who is the primary antagonist in dieselgate again? Oh yeah, the ECU, which engine manufacturers were required by law to run these testing procedures, which as a result of performing, we’re unfairly breaking the rules. If you read what engines have to do during the tests, you’d realize there is no way to do that standardized test without the engine entering a testing mode. They wanted the engine to do linear rpm ramps up and down, while emissions were being tested. Too many opinions, too few addressing fundamental problems in the formulation of various accusations. Thank you for shooting at least one bad formulation down in the talk, and thank you to the speakers for simply not getting it, showing how pernicious fundamental logical fallacies can be when they enter a debate.