UC Berkeley announced:
Shifts in climate are strongly linked to human violence around the world, and according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and Princeton University, even relatively minor departures from normal temperatures or rainfall can substantially increase the risk of conflict.
UC Berkeley researchers say their new study shows strong evidence linking climate change and violence, and stress that conflict dynamics remain poorly understood. (iStock photo)
The study, which includes more data than prior research in this field and covers all major regions of the globe, shows the Earth’s climate plays a more influential role in human affairs than previously thought. The results were published today (Thursday, Aug. 1) in the journal Science.
No increase in temperature would lead to a 50% increase in war, warmists attacking anyone that disagrees with them and has the temerity to point it out.
This is utterly disreputable and a disgrace to the word ‘science’. A sheer waste of effort to calculate multiple correlations between arbitrarily selected variables, to provide no ‘explanation’, to claim causal relations and then to admit that more research is needed to discover what these may be.
Worse still, this is meta-research, the weakest form of investigation: “We collected 60 existing studies containing 45 different data sets and we re-analyzed their data and findings using a common statistical framework. ..” – “The results proved all three types of conflict exhibit systematic and large responses to changes in climate, with the effect on intergroup conflict being the most pronounced. Conflict responded most consistently to temperature, with all 27 out of 27 studies of modern societies finding a positive relationship between high temperatures and greater violence”. Th results ‘proved’ nothing of the sort. Correlation is NOT causation and never will be!
“The authors’ new approach was to convert climate changes into location-specific units known to statisticians as standard deviations.” – gibberish!
“The findings of the study suggest that a global temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius could increase the rate of intergroup conflicts, such as civil wars, by over 50 percent in many parts of the world”. Such wonderful precision!
Honesty raises its head in the last paragraph “While the study finds strong evidence that climatic events may be a cause of conflict, the researchers stressed that they are not claiming that climate is the only or primary cause of conflict, cautioning that conflict dynamics are complex and remain poorly understood”. What kind of evidence is so ‘strong’ that it ‘may’ be true?
The conclusion is – if you would like another reason why global warming os a bad thing, pay us some cash and we will contrive to prove it!
“UC Berkeley researchers say their new study shows strong evidence linking climate change and violence, and stress that conflict dynamics remain poorly understood.” If that was the case before this groundbreaking study, now conflict dynamics is totally messed up.
Wars are usually over population pressure on resources, or at least that used to be the case.
Free economies have relatively little population pressure on resources because the resources can flow freely to their best uses. So economic liberty is a tremendous force for peace. Also, rich people rarely want to go to war.
In the last fifty years, the two main reasons for wars have been Muslim religious conflicts and dictators distracting their people from their own failures.
The areas that have suffered from famine have suffered because of war and cruelty of their own “leaders” rather than because of weather or because the world’s wealthy nations are neglecting them.
Food shortages related to weather are not going to contribute to peace, certainly, but food disruption related to weather is a recurring problem in human history. With a free and globalized economy, it need not cause serious suffering. But when you’ve got warlords seizing the food aid and using it for their own purposes, the suffering goes on.
Is this Political Junk Science Why
War has nothing to with Global warming
The Reasons for War:
There have been so many wars, and so many reasons for them a book can be written on the reasons (if there is not one). Here are some reasons war start: Power, space, resources, personal preference, insults, to defend, racism, independence, and also the good verses evil.
Power is a reason when a nation sets out to control the world. Take the Roman Empire for an example. Rome set out to conqueror the world, and they did succeed (the known world).
Looking back at World War Two we can see Hitler making his move. It was about Power,
Resources are used up and destroyed. A Famine can be another result of a war. Even the spreading of diseases. These things can cause death out side of the conflict of war.
War is about hate, greed, and other worldly (evil) things.
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-reasons-war-1272253.html
“conflict dynamics remain poorly understood” — Yes, but grant funding is VERY well understood here.
Not sure whether warming will do anything, but the the global warming scam is bound to cause a war, sooner rather than later.
The Big Green Propaganda Machine is in perpetual motion mode. They want a 95% population reduction. War kills people, so what’s the problem?