BBC news reports this morning that
global warming… uh… climate change is apparently responsible for an increase in violence.
Quoting a “study” from Berkeley (this should already make you suspicious, because anything resembling objective research from that nest of communist blowhards would be as rare as koala bears in my bathtub), the article says that the world is about to become a much more violent place.
US scientists found that even small changes in temperature or rainfall correlated with a rise in assaults, rapes and murders, as well as group conflicts and war.
Apparently scientists have now decided that correlation does equal causation.
Marshall Burke, from the University of California, Berkeley, 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.”
The researchers looked at 60 studies from around the world, with data spanning hundreds of years.
They report a “substantial” correlation between climate and conflict.
To his credit, Burke did say he wanted to be “careful” about attributing anything directly to “climate change,” and at least he admits that climate has been changing for hundreds of years. Admitting that weather does, in fact, fluctuate is the first step in curing the “anthropogenic climate change” disease.
But he found results to be “interesting,” such as an “increase in domestic violence in India during recent droughts, and a spike in assaults, rapes and murders during heatwaves in the US.” Now, if I were to examine the situation of the droughts, for instance, I’d say, “OK, the drought is causing economic hardship. Considering that in a nation such as the US, economic and fiscal issues are the top causes of divorce in the United States, it is certainly unsurprising that they would cause marital strife elsewhere! And while it’s gauche and illegal to beat up on your spouse in the United States, wife beating is pretty much endemic in other parts of the world!”
The authors of the study admit as much.
“One of the main mechanisms that seems to be at play is changes in economic conditions. We know that climate affects economic conditions around the world, particularly agrarian parts of the world.
“There is lots of evidence that changes in economic conditions affect people’s decisions about whether or not to join a rebellion, for example.”
Well, there are a lot of things that can cause a deterioration in economic conditions, including climate, earthquakes, overpopulation and Keynesians. To claim that any or all of them are responsible for violence is somewhat disingenuous.
And thankfully, there are other, more honest researchers who disagree with the conclusions.
Work published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that this environmental factor was not to blame for civil war in Africa.
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.”
But don’t let that stop you, Marshall Burke! Keep panic mongering about climate change. Maybe you’ll get a rimjob from Al Gore.