A Climate of Violence? 184
Rambo Tribble writes "U.S. researchers have come to the conclusion that a changing climate can drive increased violence in human society. Their findings are to reported in Science (abstract). 'They report a "substantial" correlation between climate and conflict. Their examples include an increase in domestic violence in India during recent droughts, and a spike in assaults, rapes and murders during heatwaves in the U.S. The report also suggests rising temperatures correlated with larger conflicts, including ethnic clashes in Europe and civil wars in Africa.' Marshall Burke, one of the authors, said, 'This is a relationship we observe across time and across all major continents around the world. The relationship we find between these climate variables and conflict outcomes are often very large.' Add this to the developing scarcity of water due to global warming and the prospects for a peaceful future do not bode well."
No shit. (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides the fact that the DoD already incorporates climate change in their threat assessments (see http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_sustainability/2012/Appendix%20A%20-%20DoD%20Climate%20Change%20Adaption%20Roadmap_20120918.pdf [osd.mil] and http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_sustainability/2012/Appendix%20A%20-%20DoD%20Climate%20Change%20Adaption%20Roadmap_20120918.pdf [osd.mil]), there's the bleedingly obvious conclusion that if an area goes through enough environmental changes that mass migration is better than staying put, conflict with the surrounding areas is guaranteed.
I mean, when New Orleans was evacuated during Katrina, that already sparked enough conflict. Now imagine that the change is permanent and that it's not just a major city evacuating, but an entire geographical area. We'll find out just how far we have evolved from chimps (hint: not very much).
RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead, Dr Halvard Buhaug, from the Peace Research Institute Oslo, Norway, concluded that the conflict was linked to other factors such as high infant mortality, proximity to international borders and high local population density.
Commenting on the latest research, he said: "I disagree with the sweeping conclusion (the authors) draw and believe that their strong statement about a general causal link between climate and conflict is unwarranted by the empirical analysis that they provide.
"I was surprised to see not a single reference to a real-world conflict that plausibly would not have occurred in the absence of observed climatic extremes. If the authors wish to claim a strong causal link, providing some form of case validation is critical."
How does more arable land and food mean violence? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rising temperatures means you can grow more crops in northern lands. Over all it means more total arable land, not less. It also means a more hospitable climate to live in up north so it's not like you lose livable habitat either, that also expands.
Thus the whole basis of the claim the article makes is nonsense.
Shakespear (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Climate of Stupidity (Score:4, Interesting)
This has to be one of the more ridiculous claims to come out of the alarmosphere about climate change I've ever heard. There's a cool list of things that are supposed to be attributable to climate change (according to the alarmists): http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/17/global-warming-ate-my-homework-100-things-blamed-on-global-warming/ [heritage.org] . I guess we can add this to the list.
Urban climatology and the sociological (health/violence/etc) are a significant area of research these days. Its not a ridiculous claim, its an important area of research because there are significant changes happening, particularly around public health. I haven't gone through this in any detail -- the study could be junk, but dismissing this area of research out of hand is actually dismissing one of the most near-term impacts of shifting climates. It'll be a long time until NYC is underwater, but the southwest is already showing public health changes because of increased heat and humidity. And those changes impact everyone, because the people least able to handle the changes are the people who tend to have their healthcare paid for by public sources.
And, for what its worth, I'm so hot today I could punch someone.
Re:What? (Score:2, Interesting)
Finally just from a philosophy of science perspective they have no underlying theory to predict a certain relationship between climate change and human activity.
This is not a new phenomenon with this paper, but perhaps it's more obvious. 99% of the Climate papers that make it to the public fail to deal with the underlying cause (Pollution). The argument in the 70s was exactly pollution (see CFC bans, CO2 scrubbing, etc..), and in the 90s the argument was renamed to ensure maximum profits for polluters. In addition, regulations put in place in the 70s were dismantled and government oversight started slipping away.
Maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, global warming and the causes - insensitiveness to that issue, isn't the same callousness cause for increasing accumulation of wealth and power to less and less individuals on the top of the pyramid, depriving the increasingly larger lower parts of basic necessities? Just look at US "minimum wage" not covering basic living expenses at full hour work week? There may be many examples, not only on wages, but also on social (female, racial, political and minority suppression) issues.
Re: Weird (Score:5, Interesting)
The study is weak at including other factors, such as population concentration density in its analysis. Population concentration has increased in lock step with Global Warming, and indeed density may be a key part in warming. Further, density has a much more readily measured correlation with violence. (That is you can measure the correlation it statistically in the modern era, without having to rely on sketchy records of the past).
There is still the competing theory of Tetraethyl lead [motherjones.com], which explains not only the rise in violence, but also the recent DECLINE in violence, which the warming theory doesn't even address.
Leaded gasoline has a remarkable correspondence to violent behavior, lowered IQ, and more so in men than women. There is a 23 year lag, in the correlation. Some areas where leaded gasoline is still used correspond to the trouble spots of the world. [lead.org.au]
And yes, it goes without saying, that correlation does not imply causation, something lost in translation in the mainstream press in their rush to pin yet another evil thing onto Climate Change.