Climate change causes war (maybe) and meaningless statistics (definitely)
One day when you grow up, children, you too can be a research scientist who writes papers that tells the world something banally obvious — like, say, that natural disasters make conflict more likely.
Who, exactly, thought natural disasters brought peace?
I don’t think the journalist who wrote this next paragraph asked himself what it means (if anything):
Globally, there was a nine per cent coincidence rate between the outbreak of armed conflicts and natural disasters like droughts and heatwaves. But, in countries that were deeply divided along ethnic lines, this rose to about 23 per cent.
I suspect it means not much (define “coincident”), but if it did, it implies that globally, 91% of wars don’t coincide with natural disasters.
If there is a real message here, it appears to be that ethnic divisions cause wars:
Dr Jonathan Donges, who co-wrote the paper about the study, said: “We’ve been surprised by the extent that results for ethnic fractionalised countries stick out, compared to other country features such as conflict history, poverty, or inequality.
“We think that ethnic divides may serve as a predetermined conflict line when additional stressors like natural disasters kick in, making multi-ethnic countries particularly vulnerable to the effect of such disasters.”
Let’s look at the policy options to reduce wars:
1. Change the planet’s climate, or
2. Reduce ethnic divides (good luck), or
3. Help the world get filthy rich as fast as possible.
Rich people cope better with natural disasters.
Photo: Quanaitra, Golan Heights, Syria. Christian Koehn. See a Nuba village in Southern Sudan.
To be fair, the authors do not blame wars on Climate Change but find a 25% correlation between war with “Heatwaves, droughts and other severe weather events” from 1980 to 2010? It just happens to have the only known period of slight warming in the last 70 years, so half of the correlation is already proven. The logical path is then that 25% of wars in this period were caused by Global Warming, which hasn’t happened since but which would cause wars if it did happen. These are scientists? Where do you get a science degree these days? Can you send away for one?
However if you argued war was caused by fossil fuel itself, black gold, you would get a great correlation. Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, Nigeria, the Spratlys currently and that is about oil. Oil was the reason Hitler wanted the Middle East (Saudi) and the Caucuses (Baku) and Romania (Ploesti). Under Winston Churchill, the British Navy changed from coal to oil in 1912 and two world wars followed.
To make the argument that wars follow crop failure must ignore the scale of the conflict. Wars are almost always about land and the wealth it brings. Greed and plunder and something to do. There used to be a war with every crop of young men, about every 25 years. The last major world war should have been in 1970 but all we had was Vietnam. Nuclear deterrent stopped war but these clever scientists could prove anything, so perhaps seventy years of world peace means nothing? Or was the Cold War really Climate Change?
192
How about: Natural events which have a negative impact on food supplies.
I’d bet that none of these researchers noticed that the El Nino of 1998 or thereabouts caused food shortages in Indonesia which led the people of Indonesia to blame and throw out the Soeharto government.
Indeed, they wouldn’t even know that food shortages are reflected in high prices for basic foodstuffs, because they have never experienced this.
110
one sees the results(some years ago) of Rum, hot tropical weather and enclosed space on the human mind;young men particularly.Once again it appears that post- grads have nothing to study, especially in the social sciences.They haven’t lived a life and probably never will.
60
I think its fair to say that most wars are based on irreconcilable ideological differences. What concerns me is that the sides of climate science are separated by irreconcilable ideological differences. On one side are those who believe that science should be driven by the scientific method and on the other are those who believe that science must be consistent with otherwise unsupportable political goals. Making matters worse is that those who deny the scientific method are so filled with self righteous indignation that anyone would disagree with them, they become blinded by ideology and become deluded into believing that science is on their side.
140
Great to see a supporter of the scientific method on here.
The scientific method tells us that CO2 levels are higher than they’ve been for as long as our species has been on the planet. It tells us – via isotopic analysis – that the increased amount of carbon that is now present in the atmospheric component of the carbon cycle has come from fossil fuels. It tells us – via radiative physics – that this carbon has a warming impact via what is known as the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Like you, I am aghast at those who believe that science should be subservient to their political goals.
127
‘The scientific method tells us that CO2 levels are higher than they’ve been for as long as our species has been on the planet.’
Apparently domesticated animals are at fault, producing more greenhouse gas than all the planes, boats and automobiles combined.
Think of your footprint, become a vegan and save the planet.
On second thought don’t bother, CO2 is benign.
101
Also there are people who believe that a CO2 is significant over the tiny time period that it has been measured.
They totally misunderstand real science and that our level of knowledge about climate, how works, and what changes it is ridiculously small.
If anyone believes they can divine a human signature from any measurements made so far would have to show how climate and weather is predictable from an analysis of measurements (proxy and direct)of all atmospheric gases over an extended time period (thousands or millions of years). They would also have to be able to show the direct cause and effect for how the climate has changed — from ice ages, to periods of heat optimum, etc. They may also know sometime nobody else knows re: Clouds — how they form, their energy balance, all the effects they have on weather and ultimately climate.
Making CO2 the primary climate change gas is foolish if you have no idea what the rest of the atmosphere is doing. How did atmospheric nitrogen, ozone, oxygen and water change over the same time period?
Reiterating that it must be CO2 because it is the gas that has had a modicum of analysis is just like the man whose only tool is a hammer. He just uselessly keeps hammering away. 🙂
81
The actual saying is, “To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”.
But of course, that is sexist, and non-PC because it only mentions nails, as a form of fastening. “Well, Screw it”, I say.
91
And I quote
From data that’s mangled and squeezed,
One tenth degree warming is teased,
As a trend to be claimed,
And on mankind is blamed,
To keep global warmists appeased.
– Ruairi
50
I remember Craig Thomas to be a great author of thrillers. Sadly, I now see Craig Thomas as an annoying blog troll.
91
… With a 1950’s hair style
81
Craig Thomas @ # 1.2.1
Quoted ;
That claim by Craig Thomas is total and complete BS!
Its a pity he doesn’t do a modicum of research before he puts his foot into his mouth again.
Reference;
Reprinted from
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
VOLUME 18 No. 2 2007
180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO 2GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS
by
Ernst-Georg Beck
———
This paper discusses the CO2 measurements and methods going back into the 19th century and provides graphs of those many thousands of measurements by some of the best and most respected scientists of the times.
Those measurements indicate that periods existed when CO2 measurements exceeded 438 ppm for extended periods in Germany in the 1939 -41.
And in a couple of the graphs show measurements made by Northern Hemisphere scientists over the period of 1857 to 1961, reached just under 450 ppm in about 1824 from where the atmospheric CO2 declined to a low of 295 ppm in 1890, remained flat until the mid 1920’s and then rose steeply to 415 ppm in about 1944 before a rapid decline to just under 330 ppm in the mid 1950’s.
An agricultural researcher I know a decade and a half or more back, on a seconded Agricultural consultancy period in China measured CO2 concentrations over 420 ppm over 300 kms west of Beijing. This when global CO2 was supposedly only about 385 ppm so regional differences can be very large indeed.
Like temperature there probably is no actual global CO2 levels applicable to the whole globe at any one time.
———
[ quote ]
It doesn’t tell us anything of the sort!
That claim is a fiction to justify the climate modellers pursuit of predictions of future climate disasters which are then used to justify the immense amounts of tax payers wealth expended on climate modelling for no remotely and yet to be seen perceivable benefit of any sort at any level to the society and its citizens who are forced to pay for all those falsehoods and grossly misrepresentative claims on the selfie claimed ability of climate models and climate modellers to predict the future of anything much at all.
A short perusal of Beck’s paper on the historical measurements of CO2 [ as listed above ] show that very large variations in both time and place exists in atmospheric CO2 levels when measured over periods of 24 hours, over a number of days, over months and seasons and over many decades of atmospheric CO2 and in a multitude of locations and regions and most of all in the great expanses of the oceans.
And all that CO2 turned up in all the wrong spots compared to what the experts and the models had predicted as the major CO2 hot spots prior to the launch of the dedicated CO2 hunting satellite the NASA OCO-2 in 2014.
Guy Callendar came up with the theory that increasing CO2 would lead to a warming of the globe as a small increase in temperature from increasing CO2 would lead to a lot more evaporation and therefore to a higher atmospheric level of Water Vapour,[ water vapour being the big gorilla of greenhouse gases and accounting for about 95% of the green house effect, anthropogenic CO2 accounts for about 0.28% , a quarter of one percent, of the green house effect] and therefore more warming in an ever bootstrapping increase in global temperatures.
The only problem with this theory is that when water vapour reaches a high concentration it condenses as low level clouds which reflect incoming solar radiation thus cooling the area below the clouds.
And then the water droplets in the clouds condense into larger drops releasing even more latent heat at high altitudes much of which is radiated back into space, heat that was acquired during the evaporation phase at ground level.
And then it rains and all that water vapour that was going to raise the temperatures to a dangerous level all falls back onto the ground and into the oceans to repeat the cycle all over again and again and again.
.
To make Craig Thomas’s claims ever further from reality, the Climate Sensitivity, the increase in temperature from a doubling of pre industrial CO2 of about a claimed 285 ppm has been coming down at a rapid rate over the last couple of years to around 1.5C and may get even lower than that as further research into real data and not modelling, digs even further into the truth of the influences on our climate, a lower CS figure which even the IPCC scientists are beginning to accept instead of an improbably high CS of 2.5 or 3C or even up to a 5C and 6C Climate sensitivity as claimed by some climate experts who safely ensconced in some salubrious academic noshery wouldn’t know a “climate” if they tripped over one.
Paleo research in fact has indicated that atmospheric CO2 was anywhere up to 2000 to 3000 PPM in past geological time frames.
Another problem that distorts the very starting points of any claims about climate sensitivity is Guy Callender’s highly biased selections of CO2 atmospheric starting points to apparently try and give his theory legs as can be seen in this graph which shows many 19th century measurements of CO2 by highly reputable scientists of the day from which Callender selectively picked out a range of very low readings to help justify his greenhouse CO2 created theory of global warming.
The real figure from the data was around 335 ppm pre- industrial Atmospheric CO2.
A low figure of 285 ppm of pre-industrial CO2 is very useful indeed to the gold digging climate catastrophists and modellers as it provides a ready made platform to deliberately inflate the lie about the dangers of CO2 and global warming.
Re Craig Thomas; Ignorance is not becoming of even a troll!
80
Craig Thomas, it seems that you have no qualifications in technology, or if some how you went to a second rate school or obtained a mail order qualification certificate, you certainly have no understanding. Heat transfer is an engineering subject. There is no such thing as ” radiative physics” but there is heat transfer by radiation, along with conduction, convection and phase change which in total no so-called climate scientist understands. The subject of heat transfer goes back to the French Engineer Lazare Carnot (b1753-d1823) who was the father of French Engineer Sadi Carnot after whom the Carnot cycle is named. Engineers have been around since 10,000BC when the first purpose built temple was constructed out of limestone blocks and columns. The first metal to be smelted was lead around 7000BC. Imhotep ca 2650BC was likely the first chemical engineer (apart from other skills such as Physician & astronomer). Leonardo da Vinci carried out engineering works with fortifications but was an observer and research in many fields of engineering. The Romans put in place a system of engineering education and training but modern engineering education started with the French.
30
Craig Thomas – The scientific method does not “tell us” anything at all. The scientific method is… a systematic approach for investigating and understanding the world around us, it is not in, and of itself, a source or repository of information.
I very much enjoyed the style of your comment though, it demonstrates a excellent balance of ignorance, arrogance, and sanctimony which is typical of those who lack any real understanding or interest in anything related to science or engineering, but think they can successfully apply an ‘appeal to authority’ argument anyway. In fact, if your comment was a stratigraphic section, it’d have its own ‘golden spike’.
50
He might recognise his name, as being vaguely familiar, but he will mentally translate the rest into blah, blah, “world around us”, blah, blah, “enjoyed”, blah, blah, “excellent balance”, blah, blah, …
10
“CO2 levels are higher than they’ve been for as long as our species has been on the planet”
You say this as if it is a bad thing.
It is in FACT, totally beneficial to the whole planet.
CO2 levels at below 350ppm atmospheric are dangerously low for continued food production.
We can be exceptionally thankful we have been able to help the planet to help us.
30
I’m aghast that climate “scientists” expect to get any say in
– energy policy
– industry policy
– tax policy
– foreign policy
– institutional investments
etc. If scientists presented their conclusions (in auditable verifiable form, end to end), provided their conclusions about scientific matters with probability ranges and then stood aside from any policy activism I might have a SHRED of respect for them.
10
“Great to see a supporter of the scientific method on here”
Most of us are, Craig.
Don’t tell me you are finally realising just how UN-scientific the AGW farce is.!!
Well done if so. Maybe you are finally growing up?
20
O/T Jo – have you seen TallBloke’s latest story? – it explains where a few hundred million of our taxes have gone.
71
The authors may want to avail themselves of William Brigg’s latest book:
http://wmbriggs.com/post/19336/
I think some of his views on other topics are somewhat peculiar, but on stats he hits the nail on the head every time.
51
I feel you have been a tad broad brushed there, TdeF.
You mention the investment in Oil made by the Royal Navy – which was largely driven by the decision to make the new Queen Elizabeth class battleships bigger, stronger, faster and OIL fired – and then through your wording imply that this choice on battleship fuel lead to two world wars. Not sure if that was your original intent with your post but I seriously doubt the new British interest in Middle East fuel supply had much to do with any A-H decisions to invade Serbia.
You also list a lot of apparent German motivations during WW2. The flaw in these arguments is that while securing an oil supply during wartime is respectively important in maintaining the ability to drive mechanised warfare, if you are not at war then you don’t really need to drive 1000s of tanks and aircraft daily. Catch 22 – are you driving on the oil fields so that you can have enough fuel to drive on the oil fields, or because your eventual peace time economy is going to depend on it?
The German deployment into North Africa in 1941 also had nothing to do with oil. The original deployment was purely to prop up the utterly demoralised Italians who had been seriously worked over by a Commonwealth offensive campaign that ended at Beda Fomm. Had Italy continued to do badly there was the realistic political chance that Italy may ask for a separate peace and drop out of the war. When first deployed Rommel – who was actually largely disliked within army circles but politically very connected – was not even suppose to attack. The rest of the German military were more interested in the upcoming invasion of Russia.
It was only later in 1942 that an overall global plan started to be worked out for combining North Africa with what they were doing in Russia and then broad brush strokes started to appear for a grand German link up somewhere vaguely east of Suez.
Invading Russia was also not directly about the oil. It was more directly about crushing those Soviet scum and taking over their entire country as a massive National Socialist fun park. Yes they would have very happily taken over the oil, but they were also planning to very happily take over everything else as well.
The oil excuse during WW2 is probably better applied to Japan, but even then there is a bit of a paradox. Japan as we know was engaged in a bit of armed expansion in China and one of the driving forces involved in trade bans against Japan was a result of this.
So again, the paradox of Japan using military expansion as a means to control fuel resources in order to allow them to continue their military expansion. If they had removed their motive for military expansion (ie – military expansion) the entire problem might have gone away.
I am not saying that ‘blood for oil’ has never been a thing, but more that it happens a lot less than many people would like to have claimed and a more accurate motivation for wars would still be ‘blood for hate.’
132
Can’t agree with most of this. The North African campaign was firstly about the Suez, the path to Britain’s Commonwealth and for British oil for the dominant British fleet, the largest in the world and far bigger than Germany’s bottled up fleet apart from the Bismark and the Tirpiz. Many Indians fought against Germany, but it is not generally recognized.
After Egypt, Saudi Arabia and yes the broad plan was to meet the other pincer East of Suez, from to Azerbaijan, the original home of oil. Even Britain planned to bomb Baku to nothing to stop Hitler reaching it. At the turn of the century, 90% of the world’s oil came from Baku. Now mechanized warfare is all about speed and oil. When Germany ultimately faltered, it was because it had no petrol for tanks, planes or trucks. They even succeeded the Northern Caucuses but found the Russian storage was full of useless diesel.
Oil is one of the great unearned treasures of the world. It is black gold gushing from artesian basins, making billionaires from peasants. There was no Blitzkreig without oil. Hitler mastered coal to oil conversion but it was only 1/3 of what he needed. The rapid collapse of France made all the oil reserves of France available plus the French fleet, which Churchill then was forced to destroy. The dominance of air over battleships had not yet been understood and the war in the Meditteranean was just starting. All power came from oil, not windmills.
Yes Hitler wanted the Russian gold, the mineral wealth, the slave labor, the farms, the industrial output, the agricultural output, the living room but he needed the oil to do this. There were many German colonies along the Volga. All the Germans have is brown coal and the Japanese do not even have that. In the end, Hitler faltered in the thrust through the Ardennes because the Americans destroyed the petrol just in time. The tank crews walked home.
Oil remains the most prized of natural commodities after gold. It is the cause of many terrible conflicts as in Sudan and Nigeria and Iraq and Kuwait.
The idea that oil increased the temperature by 0.8C in the 1980s which made people go mad and want to kill each other is quite fantastic. What sort of Science is that? Political science.
90
My reading of history and the WW2 strategy of the various armed participants backs MudCrab’s version here.
The Japanese in a fit of grandeur even suggested to and had preliminary negotiations with the Germans for their zones of influence to be demarcated along the 70th longitude.
00
That’s a pretty confused list. In say Nigeria and Sudan, it’s not about oil per se but about the money and the power that money brings. It could be guano if guano brings money and power.
Hitler needed oil because he believed in autarky and needed oil for his tanks. He couldn’t care less about the money, and he already had the power. He needed the tanks for his ideology.
As for Churchill’s change, which wars did that lead to exactly? WWI had nothing to do with oil whatsoever just about anywhere. The Uk had plenty of supplies of oil from the US amongst others.
40
My point is that oil, gas and coal are the energy sources of the 19th and 20th century. Fractioning was only discovered n 1840 and before that it was useless stuff. They did not have a use for the light product we call petrol as it was so explosive and it was not until the invention of the motor car that it became useful. Before this time any country with artesian oil was considered cursed. As Golda Meir once said, how was it that Israel had not oil. It seems you cannot run cars on milk and honey.
Churchill made many technical changes. As First Lord of the Admiralty he supported a secret Iron Land Ship project, which was disguised as “Water Containers for Russia”. Then WC, which was funny. Winston should know. So it was abbreviated to Tank and did that change everything and end trench warfare. A young German corporal saw the devastating effect of the tank. It ran on oil.
The point of his change from coal to oil was that Britain had plenty of coal, but no oil. The North Sea reserves had not been discovered, so Churchill suddenly made previously self sufficient country dependent on the Suez and BP, although as you say they could buy from the US but perhaps not so much in 1914. It was all very new.
This whole blog, the premise of every article is about coal, oil and gas and the way it has changed every aspect of our lives. Greens argue that fossil fuel is extremely harmful and heats the planet, based on the weakest of arguments. Greens Leader Di Natalie even wants to keep Whyalla but not coal, without realising steel is made from coking coal. Most Greens are totally science ignorant, which is why ridiculous articles like this appear, demonising industry as causing war by heating the planet? Whatever the reasons for war we can all agree it was not a single 0.5C increase in average temperature in the late 1980s which was likely a change instrumentation.
So the changing significance of coal, oil and gas is very important. Yes, it turns into money and you could argue that money is more important, but Hitler ran out of oil, not money.
00
That’s one superpathetic correlation. So tiny an effect.
00
“You have something I want. Give it to me”.
“no”
“Then I”ll take it from you.”
“no”
Then war.
Everything else is BS and window dressing. It takes a lot of BS to get young people to give up their
lives to earn a couple of ribbons to wear at some future parade, if they survive.
It is easier to motivate the attacked than the attackers, but, given the number of wars we’ve had, obviously not that difficult overall. Agree with the greed and plunder argument. And war is a terrific distraction to cover up domestic policy failure.
So is tubthumping for awful “science” like ‘Climate Change’.
100
The spoils of “War” always goes to the victors…
Japan had to have an area for their young girls and boys for prostitution so that the victors didn’t rape all the rest of the countries citizens as they did in many countries that were “liberated”.
Much of history is being changed around the world to protect their citizens from being informed and knowledgeable.
Currently much of education is very biased for what the US government wants societies to follow and is especially worse in college and universities today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCcvexAXEjM
62
Glad I don’t get my history from Utube.
20
There is history about dead people, which is boring. And then, there is modern history, which is all about new stuff, and who went to which party, and with whom, and why?. And what is best about modern history, is that you can get it on all of your devices, within seconds.
History seems to be taking a random walk.
10
The idea that richer people cope better with natural disasters was confirmed by two of the most tragic earthquakes of recent years.
On 12 January 2010 a 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit Haiti. Death toll was 100,000 to 300,000.
On 11 March 2011 a 9.0 magnitude earthquake occurred of the Coast of Japan that lowered the coastline by about a metre. Soon after a massive tsunami hit. Death toll was about 19,000.
Japan recovered quickly without foreign aid, though many are still homeless. The people of Haiti are still in dire poverty living in the rubble, despite billions in aid.
200
It is a most interesting study to compare Haiti to the Dominican Republic. Especially in terms of economics and poverty. The contrast is much like the DDR and the Federal Republic.
70
And the 16 Billion that was supposedly donated to Haiti,went where?
61
Those wars may have nothing to do with ‘Climate Change®’, they do have a lot to do with oil and pipelines, as well as keeping the ‘difficult’* nations in turmoil.
Now just because some nations with oil or are a gateway country for oil pipelines (also see — http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/business/2014/04/middle-east-oil-pipeline-map-diversity.html) is no reason to keep stirring the discontent within those lands, and happy to see that USA, Russia, and the Saudis wouldn’t try and do such a thing. For what use is there to escalate a local civil war to be an international one? To ensure any new administration will kowtow to you? Especially if the ‘you’ in question is the global government in waiting.
*Nations with leader who want to plow their own rut for their nation.
Also see this for some of the truth buried within this new Great Game aka New World Order.
32
So 9% of wars have something to do with ‘Climate Change™’?
What?
32
There are some places where war and violence should never occur.
00
“Globally 91% of wars have nothing to do with climate change”
Now that’s odd. I would have expected the number to be closer to 97%.
🙂
102
97% of all statisticians agree that humans influence wars, the other 3% work for the Rothschilds & Rockafellas.
90
It is also useful to note that weather events appear to be affected by humans kicking up the debris during wars.
During WWII it was noted N. Europe was very cold. It would be interesting to find an analysis of the effects of large fleet movements had on sea temperatures, flows etc. And what all the atmosphere explosions, dust and debris had on the regional temperatures, cloud cover, and rain variability.
Isn’t it strange that from 1939 to 1941 were some of the coldest winter weather recorded in N. Europe.
E.g. in 1940 —
Estonia -43,5°C (17. Jan.)
Minsk -40°C (17. Jan.)
Moscow -42.2 °C (Jan.)
Wales/UK -23.3°C (at Rhyader, 21. Jan. )
Hamburg -27°C, (13. Feb.)
Hungary -35°, ( 16. Feb.)
Winter 1940/41 brings record cold to the Skagerrak and the heaviest sea ice in the Baltic since 1883!
And then in the Pacific —
•the very interesting case of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) phase shift during the war in the Pacific 1942-1945; and
•the extreme low winter temperature in Japan 1944/45, and again the in May and July 1945.
Of course some real scientist may wish to investigate and establish the veracity that war may cause changes in local or regional weather patterns. And it may impact on the regional climate.
IMO it would be interesting to investigate the effects of war on the weather and climate.
20
Just In: Breaking
Democratic Party Platform Calls For Carbon Tax
http://www.atr.org/democratic-platform-calls-carbon-tax
The 2016 Democratic Party platform endorses a carbon tax on the American people. The carbon tax language, added at the last minute, states:
“Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean economy and help meet out climate goals.”
The move by Democrats to impose a carbon tax comes in clear contrast to the 2016 Republican Party platform opposition to any carbon tax:
“We oppose any carbon tax.”
170
BREAKING
Democrats are enemies of civilization.
Oh, wait, that’s old news. The real “new” news is that they have dropped all pretense of sanity.
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2016/07/at-democratic-national-convention-no.html
If it’s good, they’re against it. If it’s bad they are for it. It’s a simple formula, but it helps keep them from getting confused by reality.
110
Palestinians rain down Russian missiles on Israel every day. A Palestinian state will just bring on WW3
I found yesterday that when Israel was declared a State for the Jews, they did ‘ethnic cleansing’ of thousands and it was hidden from the media
The Palestinians have a genuine case but the terrorism they practice on innocent citizens from any country will stop them from claiming land and all Arabs want to eradicate Jews who have the bomb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzlh9kN4HI 43 mins has the ethnic cleansing
I see no hope for the Middle East
10
I watched all the Democrat speeches yesterday, the First Lady was best.
The mention of ”climate change” was a real low point for me, I could not vote for them and being Australian makes that possible !
I’ve studied weather/climate for decades
We have not visited the extremes of the last 2 centuries and all Tropical Storms have reduced in number and strength
30
Isn’t that 97% of wars, asks he, redundancy of the question notwithstanding? But wait… …97% is climate change not wars. There are too many key percentages to remember. But then 9% of wars must be caused by climate change. I never knew that the climate changing could have so much influence, especially since the climate isn’t changing noticeably at the moment.
I wonder which wars can be blamed on climate change. It’s all getting too complicated. So maybe let’s just not have any more wars and that will be that, 100% of wars are not caused by climate change and be done with it.
40
Wake up Roy. You’ve been having nightmares again.
20
Isn’t it more likely that 9% of wars cause climate change – all that running around in petrol fueled utes, all that heat from explosions, all the heated exchanges ……… Just saying
30
The next two or three.
Addendum: Or just the next one, if it goes nuclear, and if cause and effect is reversed.
00
‘Or just the next one…’
That would be the mooted ‘nuclear winter’.
00
And now, tackling this more seriously, if someone will lift the lid I will be happy to relegate this nonsense to the trash bin where it belongs.
Or I could really try to get serious about it which looks totally impossible right now. And on into the future too.
30
Will it never end?
30
No, Roy. It’s lasted almost as long as the Holocene.
War is a human institution. It’s usually a means to perpetrate wholesale theft by one side and to defend against the perception of such theft on the other side.
It’s all about economic advantage. So are revolutions which are really civil wars. If you have a change in your climate which renders your land more productive, a bigger neighbour will invade to take economic advantage of that. Your crops will be taxed/tithed. Anything, so you pay tribute. That was behind Japan’s invasion of China. That it was also possibly revenge for China’s attempts to extract tribute from Japan by Kublai Khan et al is a possibility, with the ‘rescue’ by the typhoons conveniently disregarded. (Memories in that part of the world seem to last for millennia.)
Back in the bad old days of the Neolithic, farming was the “new” fad. It resulted in many Cains(farmers) rising up and slaying many Abels(nomads). What was at stake? Territory (land) and the power derived from the wealth extracted from that territory. The nomad or hunter-gatherer, was “trespassing” on producing land. The crop on that land was claimed by the farmer who may or even may not have sown it. The concept of property had arrived. The farmer coveted the wealth obtainable from it and the power the wealth enabled. Ergo the nomad was “stealing.” It’s murder which has been perpetrated by many who claim exclusive holding of fertile land down through history.
Through the Bronze Age, empires were formed to extract the `wealth’ from other people’s land. Wars were fought between competing Empires. Hittite vs Egyptian vs Mycenaean vs Crete and so on are examples from the Mediterranean, to control producing and trading, the main sources of wealth.
The warring in the Mediterranean actually stopped for a while after about 1177AD because of huge or wide spread natural disaster (earthquakes toppling cities), human disaster (the copper running out in the mines in Cyprus so bronze was no longer available), climate change (the Levant and elsewhere had been stripped of trees to refine and smelt bronze). The estoppal of hostilities between the usual partners to them was also necessary because they were having to defend their own borders from being overrun by those displaced by the earthquakes and wars elsewhere.
Ur and Babylon failed through human caused disaster. The food supply for Ur failed and Babylon lost its war against Egypt. River water was used for irrigation. River water is never pure, it’s brackish. It carries the salts dissolved from the land and its soils to the sea. Using it for irrigation slowly salts the land. (See the Murray Valley in Victoria!) When the fields turn white (as has been documented by scribes in Ur), then the food supply fails and the State fails. Everyone emigrates.
And all around and through this were climate changes. Extended Drought is the big civilisation killer. When food cannot be grown, people move to somewhere where it can. (Israel and his family moved from Canaan to Egypt to survive a seven year drought. Egypt was caught by it too … see the story of Israel’s youngest son Joseph in Genesis. Egypt forgot the debt owed to Joseph and enslaved Israel’s people. Moses took them out of Egyptian slavery back to Canaan, see Genesis and Exodus.) The mass migrations caused wars (Joshua). Other changes influenced where people went and who was invaded this week.
Drought killed the Mayan city states in more recent times. It seems crop land was over-irrigated and salted at about the same time. We don’t know what wars that sparked.
The main rule is: those who haven’t covet that which is held by those who have and seek to wrest control of it.
If the climate is good, civilisation flourishes and there is lots of wealth. War is endemic as others who covet that wealth, seek to confiscate it for the power it brings.
If the climate is bad, there is human migration and those who haven’t covet that which is held by those who have and there will be war to determine who controls the source(s) of wealth and the power it enables.
Heads I win, Tails you lose.
We see the same in today’s overrunning of Europe by the Syrian refugees who are leaving a war where if you hold up your hands, you’re a target and if you don’t hold up your hands you’re a target, and those who join them looking for economic privilege from elsewhere in the Middle East (Libya, Algeria, Tunisia etc). We’ll see war there soon, I fear.
60
1177 AD should read 1177 BC.
… it’s only 2354 years out … just a slight slip, 🙂 sorry.
30
‘War is a human institution.’
Putting on my rose colored glasses, the warring states period has come to an end.
Any disruption caused by a change in the weather, long term drought or too much rain during the harvest season, no longer means massive dislocation. It’s cheaper to properly house and feed people in situ.
10
One thing is certain. Global Warming, Climate Change, Extreme Events keep otherwise unemployable second rate academics in a job as long as they can fabricate headlines. Do they actually believe any of this, more vague innuendo than science? Probably not.
A surgeon friend says medical researchers write such articles when they want fame and funding, something which comes from publicity. So if 25% more tall men die of cancer, the article says height causes cancer. It gets attention.
50
Droughts are not climate change.
Flooding rains are not climate change.
Earthquakes and tsunamis are not climate change
Crop failure is not climate change.
All have triggered conflict.
Personally where in the world has the Climate Changed in the same period 1980-2010? As even our CSIRO says, a short change is just the weather.
Again how does mankind change the climate when we cannot increase the temperature and we are currently doing our very best?
90
Thinking further about this article, you have to think it is what he was expected to write. Those who already think Industrialization and its offspring Global Warming is the root of all evil would agree and that would be his coworkers who all work in Climate Change at Potsdam. So it must be tongue in cheek. As John McEnroe said to the umpire, “You cannot be serious?”
40
Anything which causes a lot of people to uproot and move/migrate, can spark conflict. Long term drought is the most common cause of migration.
40
I’m no maths genius but how can a 25% correlation possibly be described as a correlation . At 25% it would appear that the relationship is due purely to chance. What a waste of taxpayers money!
70
David, a correlation of 25 percent is considerably greater than one of one percent or zero. The importance of that 25% depends upon how the other 75% influence is distributed. Are there 80 other factors, or just one. If 80 and that 75% is spread roughly evenly among all of them, the 25% element is the largest single influence. If one other of those 80 has a 50% influence then just two factors account for 75% of the variability in a system. It isn’t a neat arithmetical process though, since the total 75% influence of 80 factors would likely introduce near chaotic behaviour if they all tend to go their own way.
There is no nice accountant-friendly means of actually understanding the value of new knowledge. There have been plenty of advances whose “parentage” would in all likelihood have earned a Golden Fleece from Sen. Proxmire here in the US. The fact is just because we see something as absurd doesn’t necessarily make it so.
00
Since this article mentions Syria, climate cult science teaches that CO2 can now be linked to Turkey coup attempt:
Payback Time in Turkey as Coup Survivor Erdogan Cracks Down
(h/t to tomnelson@twitter)
50
Humanity cannot point to global warming as a moral absolution for war, we all know its genetic predisposition.
30
When the deity and entourage turned up here a few million years ago they chose the chimp template as the best option for future space travelers over the bonobo, because it was considered to have a better chance of survival.
In hindsight it was probably not a good choice.
As Frans de Waal put it, “Chimps use violence to get sex, while bonobos use sex to avoid violence.”
40
interesting theory which requires a template before the existance of the thing the template is based on.
10
We could start with the Brane Multiverse, just sayin’.
10
Of course!
10
As you are interested in evolution there is a lively debate over at Watts, attached to a guest essay by Andy May.
Roy Spencer is among the fray.
20
Thanks. I’ll head over there. I tend to leave creationists to live out their fantasies without the benefit of my considerable wisdom.
00
Thanks. Initial response is in moderation. Meanwhile,please can you supply a link.
Thanks
The geester
00
Found sorry for thread messiness
00
“sorry for thread messiness”
Its just leaf litter. !
21
Well I thought your comment was clever.
As for that WUWT forum – I didn’t want to add to the morass of confused layered debates. With some threads there is no other entry point. It was even hard to bring myself to add my usual glib pedantry – where to start?
00
Jo
O/T – More Censorship??
”
Phillip G Shaw | July 26, 2016 5:16 PM | Reply
A heads up: Noticed today that I have a New “Junk” folder in MS outlook…Not surprised to see
ALL Trump messages in that folder… NO easy way to turn OFF that Microsoft Anti-Trump filter.
Crazy Corrupt season….You need to check your JUNK folder”
From a comment at
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/07/your-moral-and-371.html#comments
40
Despite alarmist claims, the research to date says loudly: Climates Don’t Start Wars, People Do.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/climates-dont-start-wars-people-do/
40
Thank god for global warming because it stopped the Cold War.
10
So more people fight when it is hot than cold.
How has CAGW of about 0.7c in the last 150 years contributed?
Or is it that the warring states/parties war at the drop of a pin?
Such a tiny increase in Global Temp has ‘unleashed the dogs of War’!
This is just more of the same extreme absurdity and idiocy.
Isn’t more to the point that the CAGW propagandists/racketeers get to keep their multi trillion dollar gravy train arollin’,by flogging such irrelevant nonsense?
If CAGW is happening, then why the name change to Climate Change (CACC)?
It all a big deal over nothing!
But when it means money, honesty and integrity go MIA.
CAGW and/or CACC = BS.
Trump for the White House, Hitlery for the Out House
51
o/t:
Who remembers the climate scientists saying the oceans control the climate?
27 July, 2016, The Con: Is the tropical Indian Ocean to blame for southern Australia’s wet winter?
Author: David Jones, Climate Scientist, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Flashback!
January 4, 2008: This drought may never break
“IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior
weather experts warned yesterday.
“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.
The only uncertainty now was whether the changing pattern was “85 per cent, 95 per cent or 100 per cent the result of the enhanced greenhouse effect”.
. . .
Can anyone point to a greenhouse that has an ocean?
61
Can anyone point to a greenhouse that has no walls or roof?
40
http://www.canstockphoto.com/images-photos/broken-greenhouse.html
any other requests?
30
Can anyone point to a greenhouse that has no walls or roof, and did not fall victim to the civil war in Georgia?
00
Georgia is not in my back yard. Or at least not above the surface
00
Georgia is not in my back yard. Or at least not above the surface
00
‘Re-curring drought conditions in many parts of India are leading to starvation and distress migration. Rural poor are the worst victims of crop failure, compounded by a slump in construction activities and non-availability of work in the MGNREGA rural employment scheme.
‘However, drought cannot be blamed entirely on monsoon failure or on climate change; a flawed agricultural policy is a bigger causative factor in the collapse of farm and dairy production in semi-arid regions.’
The Economic Times / April 2016
50
Very much like Bangladesh’s and it’s more than 60 years of land reclamation, damming of rivers; reforming watercourses for rice production and for hydroelectric schemes; the remodeling of mountain ranges, poor farming decisions, etc, etc.
So much of Bangladesh’s delta is man-made – which was sanctioned by the elected governments of the day (Communist party, and soviet assistance for big government projects).
Well they now have a new plan called Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100.
After the complete mess the British, Soviets, etc. have made of the area, now the Dutch are stepping up to the mark and giving Bangladesh a punt. Good-luck to them.
My prediction is that within 6 years Bangladesh will be the subject of a major natural disaster.
52
The Chinese have arrived in Bangladesh with wads of money, building rail infrastructure and selling arms. This is a strategic nightmare for India, but it has produced positive results in getting rid of the bitterness.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesasia/2015/06/16/india-embraces-bangladesh-to-keep-china-in-check/#6d69d7bf89f8
The major natural disaster would be monsoon failure because of global cooling.
60
So multiculturalism might not be such a good idea?
50
Despite the equivocation, the study is a form of the post hoc fallacy: “A [climate change™] occurred, then B [conflict] occurred …. therefore, A [climate change™] caused B [conflict] … when B [conflict] is undesirable, this pattern is often extended to the reverse: avoiding A [climate change™] will prevent B [conflict]” (Wiki).
However in this case if correlation were an indiction of causation, climate change™ would seem to be beneficial.
70
Excellent presentation, clearly climate change is good for us, the facts speak for themselves.
50
Journalism is in the toilet
All of us want our media to report the truth. It is what we expect from this profession ..
But those days are long gone.
The amount of utter crap that is presented as news is so at variance with the truth by professional journalists that most of the journalists should have their heads down the toilet.
A suitable place …..
60
It’s a common error to use correlation as the only evidence of causation.
60
Yes and it works both ways. The terrible winters of 1812 for Napoleon, 1942/3 for Hitler in Stalingrad and 1855 for the Crimean war (thus the Balaclava as British soldiers were losing fingers and limbs) were clearly a direct consequence of war as the invasion was first. Therefore War causes massive climate cooling.
As for CO2, warming of the ocean surface causes a CO2 increase through simply physical chemistry as 98% of all CO2 is dissolved in the oceans, so the correlation between CO2 and the (integral of) temperature or heating proves that warming the ocean surface releases CO2. It has now been proven that a 50% increase in CO2 warms the air is not true. As I feel obliged to say, you can also prove absolutely that the 50% increase in CO2 is not man made, but who wants the facts?
40
Thanks to a blogger here, I also have a wonderfully funny book of great correlations between crazy things, like Nicolas Cage film appearances and the number of people drowned in swimming pools. Correlations of 10% indicate nothing at all.
50
“Nicolas Cage film appearances and the number of people drowned in swimming pools”
If I watch any more N. Cage films, I might be tempted to drown myself, too !!
10
Once you have found your hammer all the nuts and bolts will fit, even if there are a few washers leftover.
02
He said 9% rising to 23%. I’ve always thought 9.3% rising to 22.7%. I guess it depends on how you define stuff…but in the age of Publish-or-Perish you don’t want to muck about with definitions when you’ve got stats to crank out and budgets to grab.
I guess you also need to take into account the affect of weather on a Hillary Clinton. If she’s in a bad mood you don’t want to be Serbia or Libya or Syria or Yemen, that’s for sure.
60
About the only thing more complex, or as complex, than the study of the causes of war and warfare are climate science-I mean the real stuff here. It is far too complex to distill it down into a blog post. But here are some things that have been repeatable as to the causes of modern warfare:
Entanglements of international treaties and executive agreements-especially if secret or non transparent.
Extra-national organizations designed to prevent war such as the League of Nations or the EU, especially when they become used to advance the agendas by one or more factions at the expense of another.
The breakdown of national sovereignty of independent nations. This is usually very destabilizing.
The imposing of artificial borders or the creation of imposed nation states.
The placement of difficult to bear or unfair sanctions or reparations upon a people or nation state.
The imposing of taxes (especially the confiscation of wealth or property), laws, regulations, religions, or authority upon a people or nation state without their consent.
A marriage between church and state and a lack of religious freedom.
This is far from a comprehensive list, but climate change does not begin to rank among these known causes of modern conflict. However, most proposed climate change mitigation policies could and often does result in many causes from the above list.
30
once the public is fully informed, it will be CAGW POLICIES that cause people to rise up!
27 Jul: Australian: Michael Owen: Electricity price to take two years to fall, says Jay Weatherill
It will take years for South Australia’s power prices, the highest in the nation, to fall to the levels of the eastern states, Premier Jay Weatherill says, as he seeks several reforms at an urgent meeting of federal and state energy ministers…
“Clean, green, renewable energy — which is cheaper than other forms of generation — will in the long term drive prices down,” he said yesterday. “Our advice from the national electricity market operator is that within a couple of years we’ll be having very similar prices to the eastern states.”
The state’s over-reliance on wind and solar power, combined with high gas prices and a planned upgrade to an interconnector with Victoria, has seen its wholesale electricity prices this month approach the $14,000 per megawatt-hour cap.
Amid concern other states could suffer the same volatility if they followed South Australia’s rush to renewables and forced the closure of coal-fired power plants, Mr Weatherill said: “This is where the rest of the nation ultimately will end up.”
“There is no future for dirty, coal-fired power stations,” he told FIVEaa radio. “South Australia is leading the nation in renewables … it will give us a technological advantage.”
This will be of little comfort to businesses that complain they need cheap, reliable power as they compete in a global market.
Erik Bosch, general manager of plastics manufacturer Scholle Industries, told The Australian his company faced a power bill rise of $300,000 from next year….
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/electricity-price-to-take-two-years-to-fall-says-jay-weatherill/news-story/d7f5cd714532ebc5b2496e37145de1ed
25 Jul: Australian: Call to end wind farms until power solution found
by Meredith Booth & David Uren
South Australia’s power crisis was a “wake-up call” for other states on the impact on consumers of subsidised renewable energy, particularly wind power, a Liberal senator has warned.
Chris Back called for a moratorium on new wind farms, and no more subsidies for wind energy generators until the Productivity Commission conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the effect the industry was having on the National Electricity Market and retail electricity costs…
The connector, operated by private company ElectraNet, was offline when wholesale electricity prices spiked from an average of $100 per megawatt hour to almost $14,000/MWh on July 7, and triggered major businesses to threaten shutdowns…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/call-to-end-wind-farms-until-power-solution-found/news-story/acb7ab766e1d1d12140c0edc02a623f6
40
pat:
Weatherill is partly right; there will be an election in 2 years and then somebody will start fixing South Australia’s electricity problem. Meanwhile Andrews in Victoria is hell bent on turning that State into a basket case, which will make matters worse for SA. And in Qld. they are having a bout of insanity as well, so they will be wanting electricity from NSW at the same time as SA and Victoria.
We live in interesting times but with very stupid politicians.
40
If this was a genuine study into the causes of human strife, poverty and war, then I would have no objections. However I think we all know that this is just another disingenuous attempt to associate the sad aspect of modern day life/death in poor nations with natural climate change and extreme weather events. A tenuous link is then used to justify their false claims for man-made global warming. Cosy and warm in their ideology they carry on their privileged lives of academia, study and research all at the expense of real 3rd world progress. In reality these people do not care about poor nations, else would they not be giving them genuine aid in the form of cheap and reliable energy, essential to the eradication of the aforementioned poverty which blights their lives. Instead they ‘control’ their progress with climate correctness and renewable energy. We do not need this kind of ‘research’.
Geoff W
30
Climate change certainly causes mass hysteria in places largely unaffected by war and civil strife let alone catastrophic weather events.
20
26 Jul: NZ Herald: Dr Jarrod Gilbert: Why climate denial should be a criminal offence
by Dr Jarrod Gilbert
(Dr Jarrod Gilbert is a sociologist at the University of Canterbury and the lead researcher at Independent Research Solutions. He is an award-winning writer who specialises in research with practical applications)
There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change. The scientific consensus is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud. Denial has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested. The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11681154
27 Jul: Reuters: Valerie Volcovici: New York AG refuses to comply with U.S. House subpoena on Exxon probe
New York state’s attorney general on Tuesday said his office will not comply with a subpoena issued by U.S. congressmen for details on its probe of whether Exxon Mobil misled investors on climate change risks, saying it interferes with the state’s “sovereign” interests.
The move by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is the latest in the escalating political and legislative fight over Exxon Mobil and investigations on whether the oil giant knowingly misled shareholders and the public on climate change.
“The subpoena brings us one step closer to a protracted, unnecessary legal confrontation, which will only distract and detract from the work of our respective offices,” Schneiderman said in a 10-page letter to committee chair Lamar Smith of Texas that was posted online by Schneiderman’s office.
“The Committee will use all tools at its disposal to further its investigation,” said Kristina Baum, communications director for the House science committee.
Exxon declined to comment…
Leslie Dubeck, counsel to Schneiderman, said in the letter that the AG’s office would be willing to discuss the issue with the committee in a way that does not jeopardize New York state’s sovereignty.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/york-ag-refuses-comply-u-192157877.html
20
I note Dr. Gilbert does not define his terms at all. He assumes everybody “knows” what he means. Who are these “deniers” and what are they “denying?” My OED defines denier as someone who denies a religion.. So is his “Climate Change” a religion? If it’s being denied then it must be. He pronounces the risible “97% consensus …” myth in support, so it must be. Any real scientist knows science is not about a consensus, the laws of Phyisics, and Chemistry make absolutely no allowance for popularity nor even a vote. Oh, that’s right, he’s a Sociologist. Is that like Socialism? Can it raise a vote to reach a consensus? If it can, then it’s nowhere near being a science. Politics and Religion are the only areas of human thought where a consensus of people is not only sought but able to be reached. If there is a consensus, then it’s not science.
A true scientist has a duty to be always sceptical ( Dr Richard Feynman, Dr Carl Sagan). Climate Sceptics fulfill that duty. Scepticism has become denial in the eyes of the unscientific and the anti-scientific because they do not understand what it is for nor do they understand the scientific method. So what if the sceptical don’t agree that the Climate Models are “representative of reality?” Sufficient evidence has appeared over the last couple of decades that the models are deeply flawed and less accurate than chance, as so-called projections of the models have failed to happen. Projected Tipping Points haven’t tipped and have been quietly swept under the carpet. Time has Run Out, time after time and the climate is still functioning, as it does. This means the models are deeply flawed. If, after twenty years, their ability to predict is still very much less than chance, then they and their expensive super computers are nothing more than expensive toys and not only should be but need to be scrapped. New models should apply but no weight nor regard should be given them until they can perform significantly better than chance.
None of the Climate models have been validated. Engineers use many computer models to test their designs. But, unlike the Climate Models, the Engineers structural models, material models etc have to be rigorously validated in the laboratory before any designs destined for the Real World from those models can be constructed. The Engineers models of the behaviour of materials in common design and real world circumstances must be accurate. Lives depend on it. We can see the validity of the Engineer’s models because buildings don’t collapse every day, bridges aren’t blown over by every storm, auto alternators continue to provide reliable electricity to run engines and lights all day every day. Would Dr. Gilbert consider using the motorway tunnels in his area after its recent earthquakes if the Engineer’s structural and materials modelling under Earthquake conditions hadn’t been validated to significant levels? The motorway tunnels didn’t collapse.
Dr. Gilbert, by its very nature science is never settled. Only those who have absolutely no understanding of the Scientific Method could utter such nonsense. There have been over 250 scientific papers on Climate published so far this year. How can this be if the science is settled? When it’s settled, there’s nothing more to discover, it’s all been found.
Dr. Gilbert’s polemic is actually anti-science as it is pseudo-scientific. It sounds plausible but it’s a long way away from reality. The “97% consensus” has been debunked several times. If you do your research, Dr. Gilbert, you would have found that out for yourself, after all, you lay claim to an advanced research degree, a Ph.D. no less. You’ve given no supporting evidence so I have returned the favour. You hold a University post, you have access to your University’s excellent library and its research-supporting services to be able to do a better literature search for scientific papers to source the real science to ground your polemic in, than you have. You obviously haven’t done it. Careless of you, Sir.
While you’re at it, research the history of the Witch Hunts and their impacts on the societies and the peoples of the times. You have the expertise there as a sociologist, and you may be able to enlighten us further about them and their social effects instead of just calling for Yet Another Pogrom. You could also see for yourself how King James I after publishing a book about Witches later became highly sceptical about them and the Witch Hunting he had helped to promote.
To be able to outlaw Climate Denial, Dr. Gilbert would have to get Climate Change officially recognised as a religion. Given the example of the Witch Hunts, Dr. Gilbert, what you propose will only bring more evil into the world. Think about it, very carefully.
Now, Blog Denizens and Denizenesses: Let us vote on whether or not Dr. Gilbert is a scientist, a pseudo-scientist, or a mythologist. When we have reached a consensus, we can so inform him.
20
Dr Gilbert changed feet with:
Oh brother. I remember a variation of this cartoon. Try it and tell us what it feels like, Dr. Gilbert.
00
comment #28 is in moderation.
lol. i was going to write Moody’s will no doubt rate them as AAA, but this is addressed in the article:
27 Jul: ABC: Green bonds the new black in the market as environmental financing surges
By business reporter Stephen Letts
In a research note on the sector, the credit ratings agency Moody’s found environmentally focused green bond issuance in the June quarter hit a record $US20.3 billion ($27 billion), well above the $US16.9 billion ($22.5 billion) recorded in the first quarter of the year.
Added together, the two quarters raised almost 90 per cent more capital than in the first half of 2015.
“The global green bond market is now poised to reach $US75 billion ($100 billion) in total volume for 2016 and so set a new record for the fifth consecutive year, given the strong issuance already observable in the first two weeks of Q3,” Moody’s senior vice president Henry Shilling said.
That fresh flow in the third quarter includes $300 million worth of bonds from Victoria put out to tender earlier this month, the first green issuance from an Australian state or federal government…
***The increasing demand has been supported by many big pension funds now carrying mandates that stipulate portfolios must hold required levels of environmentally friendly investments…
The US dominated issuance, with 23 per cent of the market, followed by the big development agencies such as the World Bank, with 17 per cent, although China is expected to bounce back to its dominant position in the market with $US3 billion worth of bonds in the pipeline for sale in coming months…
***Moody’s found 97 per cent of the green bonds were investment grade, with 43 per cent carrying the top tier AAA rating and only one – from Banco Nacional de Costa Rica in deal to finance renewable energy and clean water projects – was deemed to be in the “speculative” Ba1 rated category…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-27/green-is-new-black-in-the-bonds-market-environmental-finance/7664414
20
When ever anyone links climate change to famine or war I refer them to this NYT article by Andrew Revkin and the on-link to one by Alex de Waal. You really do need to view the slide show linked at the end of Revkin’s article and within de Waal’s.
No need to say anything more
30
Good story and if further proof is needed that political behavior brings about mass starvation, we only need look at the 45 million Chinese who starved to death under Mao. This great leap into the abyss took four years of unimaginable horror.
The weather was fine and the harvests perfectly normal, climate change wasn’t a factor.
10
calling Tim Flannery:
27 Jul: Adelaide Advertiser: Meagan Dillon: Mt Bold reservoir at 98 per cent capacity after heavy rains, compared to 31 per cent last year
THE flood gates are open at the Mt Bold dam following weeks heavy rainfall across the metropolitan area.
The Adelaide Hills dam is among five of Adelaide’s reservoirs that are either closing in on reaching capacity or are full.
The Mt Bond dam was at 98 per cent capacity on Wednesday — up from 31.2 per cent capacity at the same time last year — after its gates were opened on Tuesday.
Warren Reservoir was at 100 per cent but as it has no gates it simply spills over into the South Para River.
The Myponga Reservoir was also at 98 per cent capacity last night while the Happy Valley and Barossa reservoirs were at 95 per cent capacity…
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/mt-bold-reservoir-at-98-per-cent-capacity-after-heavy-rains-compared-to-31-per-cent-last-year/news-story/a5a16982ee524be4c5574d4ef3dc0f47
27 Jul: International Business Times: Ritwik Roy: Tasmania’s Lake Pedder overflow does not pose threat to life or property
In almost three decades, Lake Pedder in Tasmania is set to overflow for the first time. In the last 24 hours heavy rains lashed the region and the lake’s water level has risen 20cm. With capacity now at 99 percent, the lake is set to overflow on Wednesday…
Heavy rains have pushed the water level from 87 percent to 99 percent. When the water level reaches full supply level in the next 12 hours, Hydro Tasmania will follow standard operating procedures and open the Serpentine Dam outlet gate…
Flooded Lake Pedder has a surface area of approximately 242 square kilometres and is the largest freshwater lake in Australia…
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/tasmanias-lake-pedder-overflow-does-not-pose-threat-life-or-property-1523503
10
A cooling climate = lower crop yields = hungry people = war.
10
Yep, with the AMO heading down, and the Sun having a bit of a snooze, the NH is facing a cooling period for maybe 20-30 years, maybe also affecting the SH.
Things could get nasty as the world struggles with food and energy supply.
10
Add to that the totalitarians want to REDUCE CO2 in a world with a population increasing about 1% a year!
Why would you do that, the increase in Co2 is producing increased food yields which allow us to feed this many people, reduce CO2 and you have a recipe for famine
00
Ex-Warmist said:
It’s one excuse.
The opposite side of the coin is a warm climate equals good crop yields, an economic surplus and war.
There was the Medieval Warming. Times were good. The economic surplus was invested in Cathedral building all over Europe and in the Crusades (war). As soon as the cold hit, the surplus disappeared and the Crusades stopped.
There was the Roman Warming. The Roman Empire expanded to absorb most of Europe and the Mediterranean.
War.
The Roman Warming was followed by the Dark Ages. The early years after the warming (esp. the 4th Century AD) saw the Germanic tribes on the move. Maybe it was hunger. Whatever, the cold appeared in the north sooner. There was still war. Rome was sacked, several times.
In the Little Ice Age, Spain rumbled around Europe and had a go at England in the fifteenth century (The Armada),
and lost. War.
In the seventeenth century, the middle of the Little Ice Age, (cold, and over a million deaths from starvation across Europe) England fought two wars with the Dutch and won. The famous/notorious/offensive F-word was added to the English language as a memorial.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s warm or cold. War is a human institution and is practiced whenever there is an excuse, like the shooting of a pompous but harmless elderly Austrian Duke in Serbia just over a century ago. I don’t want to think about the casualty count of the war that triggered a hundred and two years ago.
00
Ex-Warmist said:
It’s one excuse.
The opposite side of the coin is a warm climate equals good crop yields, an economic surplus and war.
There was the Medieval Warming. Times were good. The economic surplus was invested in Cathedral building all over Europe and in the Crusades (war). As soon as the cold hit, the surplus disappeared and the Crusades stopped.
There was the Roman Warming. The Roman Empire expanded to absorb most of Europe and the Mediterranean.
War.
The Roman Warming was followed by the Dark Ages. The early years after the warming (esp. the 4th Century AD) saw the Germanic tribes on the move. Maybe it was hunger. Whatever, the cold appeared in the north sooner. There was still war. Rome was sacked, several times.
In the Little Ice Age, Spain rumbled around Europe and had a go at England in the fifteenth century (The Armada),
and lost. War.
In the seventeenth century, the middle of the Little Ice Age, (cold, and over a million deaths from starvation across Europe) England fought two wars with the Dutch and won. The famous/notorious/offensive F-word was added to the English language as a memorial.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s warm or cold. War is a human institution and is practiced whenever there is an excuse, like the shooting of a pompous but harmless elderly Austrian Duke in Serbia just over a century ago. I don’t want to think about the casualty count of the war that triggered a hundred and two years ago.
Bobl said:
Maybe somebody somewhere wants a war. Or several wars. Or a really big and destructive war? World War III within twenty years?
20
O-o-okay. Two postings from one attempt. Hey, can I apply for a prize for that? No error message like “You have already said that.” Oh well: you hoo. Mods! You’re needed. #33.3 and this one can go, 33.4 can stay.
10
AndyG55 @ # 33.1
When you put those three “Food” and “Energy”and “falling global temperatures” together in the same sentence and the consequences as the green trougherati in their abject ignorance and hubris trying to destroy the sources of both Food and Energy then the world or at least the western part of civilsation is in very deep doo-doo indeed.
We CANNOT grow crops or livestock just using electricity let alone intermittent, utterly unpredictable, prohibitively expensive and unaffordable turbine generated electrical power.
The world’s food growers and producers need oil, lots and lots of oil to run their machinery, their food transport systems, to produce their fertilisers and chemicals and only then do they need electricity, reliable cheap electrical power to then process that raw food, and then oil again to transport the processed food and then electrical power again to cool and preserve and display food products for the city centric ignorati to buy off the super market shelves where it so mysteriously appears every day after day without fail.
No oil, No coal, No fossil fuels and the mystery of the always appearing but no longewr appearing food will be have to be solved literally in hours as the realities of a foodless city centric society hits home with empty bellies and no rapid city food re-supply sources any longer available as with no oil, crops would no longer be sown [ leaving a foodless gap of at least a year while new crops are planted and grown in the case of the major grain, legume and oil seed crops ] and livestock no longer mustered if there is no longer any oil available for the food producers.
An American university project back in the 1980’s worked out that when you start with the ores in the mines and the processing into machinery and fertilizers and chemicals plus energy use in transport and processing and etc, in short the total of the energy inputs to food production, the amount of energy in the food produced for the consumer was about equal to the total amount of energy used to produce and grow that food.
The food crop just converted the raw and inedible energy sources into an edible, human life sustaining energy source called “food”.
Which implies, cut energy supplies to the food producers and expect a similar reduction in food production.
And expect to go hungry, possibly very hungry if you do!
30
Central England Temperatures show a 0.3C cooling trend and Vuk suggests that if it continues at this rate then the Thames will freeze over within decades.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET%202005%20-2015.gif
00
Well, I expect severe climate change does cause war, and definitely has in the past. Once the Roman warm period came to end, the barbarians came off the high plains in waves rather than starve. The little ice age triggered many wars in Europe. But, the fact that climate change causes conflict proves nothing about the cause of climate change. It is interesting to note, however, that it is invariably cooling and the subsequent failed crops and frigid weather that have caused wars. Warming invariably brought peace and prosperity (from abundant harvests).
20
… which is often spent on war. The Medieval Warming across Europe “created” a large economic surplus. Some of it was spent on building glorious cathedrals. The rest was spent on the Crusades. War.
The Roman expansion around the Mediterranean (lots of war) was made during the Roman Warming. The Roman retreat from its Northern Frontiers occurred at the start of the late 3rd Century cooling. Rome was sacked by incoming Germanic Tribes (War).
It doesn’t matter whether it’s warm or cold. War is a human institution. Climate Change merely sets the excuse.
00
That headline should read “Globally 97% of wars have nothing to do with climate change”…
00
I’m astonished by the flabbergastered scientists. “Everyone knows” wars in third world are caused by imperialists who drew borderlines without paying attention to different peoples.
In other words, the EU (getting many national identities into one federation) sounds a great peace project and getting additional immigrants from outside the EU in large masses seems to make it even greater. Thanks, left wing. /sarc
10
The study is absolute bilgewater. One could argue that natural disasters, like manor earthquakes, tsunami damage, Ebola, bring out the best in humanity with international relief agencies and individuals contributing without expectation of reward to the relief of those affected.
You might as well attribute war to conflict on the football pitch. But hold on, it did didn it?
00
Whilst natural events may fuel conflicts, theorizing that climate change causes conflicts is completely in correct.
Droughts, storms and heat waves having always occurred throughout history. Climate change does not equal natural weather events, rather it is the supposed increase in the unfavourable ones.
Good luck to the author to show a increase in droughts or hurricanes.
Alternatively he can suggest if people have good crop yield and live in prosperity people will spent more time with conflict (mentioned by an earlier poster). This could probably double the amount of wars caused by climate change. However this would mean the UN is keeping everyone in poverty to reduce wars, and I bet he wouldn’t touch that concept with a fifty foot pole.
00