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.
You know that Keystone XL project that Zero rejected recently? The project that would have created thousands of jobs and reduced our dependence on Middle-Eastern oil? The one that David Sassoon whined would give lots of eeeeevil profits to the eeeeevil Koch brothers?
Well, care to guess who benefits from the cancellation of the Keystone XL project?
Warren Buffett, whom President Obama likes to cite as a fair-minded billionaire while arguing for higher taxes on the wealthy, stands to benefit from the president’s decision to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.
Mr. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC, which is among the railroads that would transport oil produced in western Canada if the pipeline isn’t built.
“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., told Bloomberg News. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul,” she said.
Yeah, I bet you’re ready to haul it.
Interesting that the administration would nix a project that would create jobs and provide a much better alternative to the energy sources we’re currently using on environmental grounds, while the existing alternative (conveniently belonging to an important supporter) is actually much less environmentally sound.
Things that make you say, “hmmmmmmmmmm.”
A few days ago, I received an email from a reader named Scott, who proposed to write a guest article for this site. I agreed. He appears smart and well-versed.
At a time when budget deficits and debts are spiraling out of control, we need more than heated rhetoric from politicians. We need real cuts and real changes to help companies create jobs – NOT have government create jobs for us by depleting them from the private sector. The effort to defund the deleterious efforts of the EPA to destroy America’s businesses and force changes upon Americans’ way of life via government force is critical.
Scott Portman is a health, safety, and political advocate. He has a great passion for economics and American fiscal policy. He is a graduate of University of South Florida and is an aspiring journalist. Scott currently resides in Florida.
The budget has been a major topic in the early months of 2011. As debates rage on throughout the United States in March and April, there’s a particular chunk of the budget that has caused conflict between businesses and the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA’s costly regulations have driven business owners and members of the GOP to the edge. In the early months of 2011 the EPA has seen a strong effort levied against its unnecessary and costly regulations.
The EPA has had an abominable reputation with industry since its inception decades ago, and for good reason. Business owners view the EPA as nothing but a bureaucracy that imposes unneeded and extremely expensive regulations on their companies. In the process, they see these regulations as a major hindrance to revenue and job growth. The EPA’s burdensome red tape and costly rules hurt industry profits, often forcing companies to hire personnel to deal specifically with said directives, instead of hiring actual employees to carry out the business.
As mentioned earlier, members of the GOP have teamed up with business leaders in a battle against the EPA. In response to an early 2011 proposal from President Obama that would have done little to curb the deleterious powers of the EPA, GOP representatives proposed more stringent legislation that would have cut approximately 30 percent from the EPA’s 2010 slate. The proposal would have removed funding from programs that have little environmental impact, such as the Clean Air Act. From a business standpoint, the Clean Air Act is nothing more than a way to impose costly regulations.
Additionally, some Republicans introduced the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, which passed in Congress by a vote of 255-172 last week. This legislation would put an end to the EPA’s “cap and trade” agenda, by preventing the agency from acting beyond the authority granted to it by Congress, essentially taking some of the decisionmaking ability away from the EPA. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Congressmen Fred Upton (R-MI), and Ed Whitfield (R-KY) see a number of benefits to the act. In a press release the three claim it would “Protect American Jobs and manufacturers from overreaching EPA regulations that hinder our ability to compete with China and other countries.”
The GOP would simply prefer to diminish the EPA’s unnecessary and costly regulations, while still retaining useful initiatives, such as helping remedy asbestos-related mesothelioma cases and problems from water contamination. For example, the EPA could use more resources dedicated to the campaign to remove asbestos from areas all over the country. The EPA’s asbestos removal efforts have helped reduce health risks in the US, sometimes with life-saving results. For instance, mesothelioma life expectancy is normally short. Afflicted patients are not expected to survive more than a year after diagnosis. This is certainly a better cause for the EPA than its usual politically-oriented punitive campaign against America’s businesses.
In this week’s budget agreement, there was a 16 percent total cut to the EPA’s 2010 slate, far less than what was proposed by the GOP earlier this year. Hopefully, Republicans will continue to introduce measures to curb the power of the EPA and help relieve the burden the agency places on America’s businesses.
So Phil Jones… asshat. Lying asshat. Lying, attention whoring, sympathy seeking asshat.
He just can’t seem to have learned the first rule of holes. STOP DIGGING, ASSHOLE!
First, he was just disorganized.
Then he was just a bad record keeper.
Then, he was a weeping ignoramus, sniveling about having considered suicide.
Then he admitted that maybe, just maybe he did a teeensy, weeensy doctoring of the data about alleged global warming,
Fact of the matter is, he’s just a liar.
While the Jones temperature analysis relies upon the GHCN network of‘climate-approved’ stations whose number has been rapidly dwindling in recent years, I’m using original data from stations whose number has been actually growing over time. I use only stations operating over the entire period of record so there are no spurious temperature trends caused by stations coming and going over time. Also, while the Jones dataset is based upon daily maximum and minimum temperatures, I am computing an average of the 4 temperature measurements at the standard synoptic reporting times of 06, 12, 18, and 00 UTC.
I compute average monthly temperatures in 5 deg. lat/lon grids quares, as Jones does, and then compare the two different versions over a selected geographic area. Here I will show results for the 5deg. grids covering the United States for the period 1973 through 2009.
The following plot shows that the monthly U.S. temperature anomalies from the two datasets are very similar (anomalies in both datasets are relative to the 30-year base period from 1973 through 2002). But while the monthly variations are very similar, the warming trend in the Jones dataset is about 20% greater than the warming trend in my ISH data analysis.
And speaking of liars… why can’t the inventor of the Intertubez just go away?
I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion.But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.
I, for one, genuinely wish that Al Gore would fade into irrelevancy where he belongs, but I fear that’s not going to happen.
Despite overwhelming proof that Jones and crew tried to perpetrate the biggest fraud upon the world in history, the Goremeister still claims that we’re in some kind of climate crisis. His assertion? Hey! What’s a few mistakes? The world is STILL warming!
It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile,make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.
Uh… Yes. Let’s conveniently overlook what is actually IN those emails – like proof to hide evidence that didn’t support their scientific theory… like evidence of intentional fraud… Let’s not focus on that! Just listen to Al!
Yeah, there’s a crisis alright, dumbass! It’s now March, and the snow STILL hasn’t melted from my property! There’s also a crisis of intelligence, because there are actually shitnozzles out there who still believe you!
But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.
That’s right. It doesn’t matter that the evidence was fabricated! It matters that there are still dumbasses out there – maybe five of them – who agree that evil man has caused the earth to warm. And as long as those five dumbasses agree with Al Gore, something must be done!
Oh, and by the way… the scientific genius and inventor of the Internet claims that the record snowfall and cold this year? Yep. Caused by global warming!
Weren’t the eco zealots claiming just a few years ago that the record lack of snow and mild winter was caused by global warming?
For the life of me, I can’t figure out how someone as obtuse as Al Gore ever got any credibility whatsoever.
Really, isn’t it about time he faded into obscurity, along with Octomom and Balloon Boy?
With all the revelations about the massive fraud perpetrated on the world by global warming eco zealots, it’s a surprise they have any credibility left.
But apparently – proving once again that global warming is an eco zealot cult – some legislators in South Dakota want to force public schools to teach said eco zealotry alongside real science…
…you know – much like religious types want creationism (cleverly packaged as “intelligent design”) taught alongside evolution in science classes.
Now, for the record, I don’t mind religious education in public schools – BUT NOT TAUGHT AS SCIENTIFIC FACT. If a child and the parents want said child to take a class about religion – no matter what religion – I have nothing against this. I do, have a problem, however, with people who want to pass religion off as science and want to teach it side-by-side.
Much like I have a problem with global warming being taught along side real science as a “scientific theory.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of
Representatives of the Eighty-fifth Legislature of the State of South
Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South
Dakota Legislature urges that instruction in the public schools
relating to global warming
include the following:
(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;
(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological,
cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and
that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and
(3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical
viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of
global warming phenomena; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Legislature urges that all instruction on the theory
of global warming be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to
the prevailing classroom circumstances.
Oh and by the way? ASTROLOGICAL? WTF????
The debate on global warming is about politics. It’s about power. It’s about the power to destroy. It certainly shouldn’t be taught in schools as “scientific theory.” Given the amount of fraud – both intentional and erroneous – involved in this issue, politics need to be kept out of science. It’s caused enough problems already.