According to a study done by the National Academy of Science, a 10% reduction of crop yield in Mexico results in 2% more people trying to enter the US from Mexico.
1) crop yields have been steadily increasing over 100 years thanks larges to fossil fuels. If there is reduction due to climate change it will not erase the gains. We also do not know that there will be a reduction since farmers are good at adapting.
2) It simply nonsense to claim that a reduction in crop yields definitively is linked to migration because migration only happens if the governments are incapable of managing the problem (i.e. what are the chances of people migrating from the US if crop yields go down?). Therefore, it is more valid to say that bad government leads to migration - not climate change.
It’s funny that we can predict so many things but no matter how much we study, it we can’t predict the effects of climate change. Odd that is.
It is not odd at all. When it comes to climate change controlled experiments are impossible. We don't even have the option of double blind studies which are the gold standard in medicine. This means there is no way to determine what claims have merit and which are nonsense.
But we also have a history of doom mongers to look back on. Remember the population bomb? All of those "predictions" were made based on the best science of the day yet they were spectacularly wrong. Why should we assume these climate change predictions will fare any better?