I can't say I've ever been put in a great mood being out in the heat
So you would rob a bank, and your defense would be the changing climate?LOL....
Topic: Rise in violence 'linked to climate change' (Read 1972 times)
LOL....
I can't say I've ever been put in a great mood being out in the heat
Who said global cooling?
Global High temperature chart looks like a Global erected penis
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/173156/
Obviously, more direct study of the matter is required.
That may work for the military, but it doesn't work for scientists. You do know that the people who give out government grants are other scientists, right? Not politicians or someone who would benefit from either answer.
Scientists that work for the government who have based their careers upon global warming.
Governments that receive more money based upon the hype of global warming (see terrorism for military funding).
Who said global cooling?
Global High temperature chart looks like a Global erected penis
There is money to be made in research that shows that there is global warming.
I know from experience that when doing studies for the government, the first question that comes up at the meeting before the study is done is "what answer do they want?". I did simulation coding for military radio technology. They would usually come to us to see if a particular configuration of radios would have a bottle neck or if there would be coverage during a battle. With radio technology there are so many factors to simulate that you can tweak a few numbers and get very different results. Both legitimate based upon the limited ability to model every single aspect of the situation. So we tend to follow the trail that leads toward the result the customer is expecting, or as close to it as possible with plenty of data to back it up.
I know from experience that when doing studies for the government, the first question that comes up at the meeting before the study is done is "what answer do they want?". I did simulation coding for military radio technology. They would usually come to us to see if a particular configuration of radios would have a bottle neck or if there would be coverage during a battle. With radio technology there are so many factors to simulate that you can tweak a few numbers and get very different results. Both legitimate based upon the limited ability to model every single aspect of the situation. So we tend to follow the trail that leads toward the result the customer is expecting, or as close to it as possible with plenty of data to back it up.
That may work for the military, but it doesn't work for scientists. You do know that the people who give out government grants are other scientists, right? Not politicians or someone who would benefit from either answer.
REALLY? Let me check my science book from a few decades back.
Yep, Piltdown man has a whole chapter.
Lol...
There is money to be made in research that shows that there is global warming.
I know from experience that when doing studies for the government, the first question that comes up at the meeting before the study is done is "what answer do they want?". I did simulation coding for military radio technology. They would usually come to us to see if a particular configuration of radios would have a bottle neck or if there would be coverage during a battle. With radio technology there are so many factors to simulate that you can tweak a few numbers and get very different results. Both legitimate based upon the limited ability to model every single aspect of the situation. So we tend to follow the trail that leads toward the result the customer is expecting, or as close to it as possible with plenty of data to back it up.
I know from experience that when doing studies for the government, the first question that comes up at the meeting before the study is done is "what answer do they want?". I did simulation coding for military radio technology. They would usually come to us to see if a particular configuration of radios would have a bottle neck or if there would be coverage during a battle. With radio technology there are so many factors to simulate that you can tweak a few numbers and get very different results. Both legitimate based upon the limited ability to model every single aspect of the situation. So we tend to follow the trail that leads toward the result the customer is expecting, or as close to it as possible with plenty of data to back it up.
That may work for the military, but it doesn't work for scientists. You do know that the people who give out government grants are other scientists, right? Not politicians or someone who would benefit from either answer.
The key is, what answer would get me the next contract or grant.
Cooling! Exxon/Mobil will then give you your next grant.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/03/unprecedented-july-cold-arctic-sees-shortest-summer-on-record-normally-the-high-arctic-has-about-90-days-above-freezing-this-year-there-was-less-than-half-that/
Evidence!
Seriously, though. I understand that new IPCC report has a substantial chop in the climate sensitivity value, so they are admitting the skeptics have been right, or the hysterical alarmists wrong, take your pick. But there's no reason to read to or refer to that tome for scientific understanding, it's got it's own share of errors and omissions. In fact the very idea of aggregating science into a single viewpoint is ridiculous.
The key is, what answer would get me the next contract or grant.
Cooling! Exxon/Mobil will then give you your next grant.
There is money to be made in research that shows that there is global warming.
I know from experience that when doing studies for the government, the first question that comes up at the meeting before the study is done is "what answer do they want?". I did simulation coding for military radio technology. They would usually come to us to see if a particular configuration of radios would have a bottle neck or if there would be coverage during a battle. With radio technology there are so many factors to simulate that you can tweak a few numbers and get very different results. Both legitimate based upon the limited ability to model every single aspect of the situation. So we tend to follow the trail that leads toward the result the customer is expecting, or as close to it as possible with plenty of data to back it up.
You know how in math class you would sometimes have the answers in the back of the book but you still had to show your work. And how you would do the math question keeping the answer in mind as you go through it. That is how such research is done.
If I were an environmentalist and my data showed cooling, I would go back and refine the data in a completely legitimate way until the results showed warming. Both answers would be right. Based upon the limited abstraction of the simulated data. You cannot simulate every molecule in the world, so you have to summarize large amounts of molecules in an explainable way.
The key is, what answer would get me the next contract or grant.
I know from experience that when doing studies for the government, the first question that comes up at the meeting before the study is done is "what answer do they want?". I did simulation coding for military radio technology. They would usually come to us to see if a particular configuration of radios would have a bottle neck or if there would be coverage during a battle. With radio technology there are so many factors to simulate that you can tweak a few numbers and get very different results. Both legitimate based upon the limited ability to model every single aspect of the situation. So we tend to follow the trail that leads toward the result the customer is expecting, or as close to it as possible with plenty of data to back it up.
You know how in math class you would sometimes have the answers in the back of the book but you still had to show your work. And how you would do the math question keeping the answer in mind as you go through it. That is how such research is done.
If I were an environmentalist and my data showed cooling, I would go back and refine the data in a completely legitimate way until the results showed warming. Both answers would be right. Based upon the limited abstraction of the simulated data. You cannot simulate every molecule in the world, so you have to summarize large amounts of molecules in an explainable way.
The key is, what answer would get me the next contract or grant.
I would go as far to say that critical thinking is the one must productive topics to master to become a more rounded human being, genuine life changing stuff.
Agreed. Rational thought should be the very first thing people learn after understanding their native language and before being forced through years of school without any clue why they can't figure anything but what they'll wear that day and if that hot girl/guy in their 3rd period class will notice them--but I digress.
Looks like the bitcoin difficulty graph 
Yes, and anyone who says the difficulty is flat is just as uninformed as anyone who says temperature is not increasing.
2x
I thought global cooling was the new thing. Are people still on the global warming fad?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
Who said global cooling?This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
Looks like the bitcoin difficulty graph
Will bitcoin ice up if the world chills?
I thought global cooling was the new thing. Are people still on the global warming fad?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
Who said global cooling?This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
Looks like the bitcoin difficulty graph
Can't you guys just read the IPCC report?
That sounds really really boring....That's like some couple thousand pages pap refined to the promulgated truthies by the dirty dozen, right?
Can't you guys just read the IPCC report?
Anyone confused about the global warming debate should check out the youtuber "potholer54". He is a former science journalist who understands what science is and how the media butcher science. His videos are as much about critical thinking, standards of evidence etc. Serious brainfood. I would go as far to say that critical thinking is the one must productice topics to master to become a more rounded human being, genuine life changing stuff.
I posted the data in post #4. It's from the IPCC. Please look at the whole range since the industrial revolution. You wouldn't make a post saying the overall bitcoin price trend was down based on april 3 - april 10 would you?
Maybe he wouldn't do that for bitcoin, but he's obviously not above doing it for temperatures. I'm sure it will come out that he sides with the deniers.
I posted the data in post #4. It's from the IPCC. Please look at the whole range since the industrial revolution. You wouldn't make a post saying the overall bitcoin price trend was down based on april 3 - april 10 would you?
Here's better data from a better source:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/6
It might be too early to see a pattern, but some things are really changing, and the idea that heat brings violence is nothing new.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/6
It might be too early to see a pattern, but some things are really changing, and the idea that heat brings violence is nothing new.
Getting your source material from a website that has an agenda, eh?
I have no idea what thinkprogress.org's agenda is.
Quote
I don't think that it's as simple as more heat=more violence, but climate change and destruction of the environment does lead to violence and death.
Those are some good examples you provided there but the thing is they also prove my counter-point, it's the destruction of an environment that leads to violence and death, that's not necessarily directly because of climate change. You can have man made disasters, if I knew enough about how to affect different climates ( I find the stuff boring to be honest so I don't look into it that much ) I could even use it as a weapon against a country, sure, it might not kill everyone off, but it would certainly soften up their armed forces if they got diseased from drinking water etc. then there's all the kinds of things that happen naturally on our own planet, volcano's, hurricanes, tornado's, earthquakes and the millions of bloody insects and bacteria that are quite happy to kill us.
Also, don't take it personally any of you lot
trolling other cultures is a British persons favourite passtime, we can't help it Well, I don't disagree that destroying an environment has an effect. But harming the environment changes the climate. In the Haiti case, they cut down too many trees. This allowed the hurricanes that have hit them to build up greater strength, as the wind and water were not slowed by the trees. Keep in mind that climate change is not solely a rise in temperature. Weather is part of the "climate" and the Haitians made the weather a lot worse than it should have been.
On a side note, the Dust Bowl is a great example of humans destroying the environment, leading to climate change, and there being a lot of violence, starvation, and crime afterwards. But that was a while ago.
I don't know much about it, but the increased frequency of tornadoes in the US could possibly be due to overfarming, which flattens the land and makes them more likely to happen.
Overall it appears that this is what happens: Destruction of the natural environment ----> climate change (weather or temperature) ------> destruction of human environment -------> Looting, rape, and all the other great stuff that comes with "natural" disasters.
Quote
I don't think that it's as simple as more heat=more violence, but climate change and destruction of the environment does lead to violence and death.
Those are some good examples you provided there but the thing is they also prove my counter-point, it's the destruction of an environment that leads to violence and death, that's not necessarily directly because of climate change. You can have man made disasters, if I knew enough about how to affect different climates ( I find the stuff boring to be honest so I don't look into it that much ) I could even use it as a weapon against a country, sure, it might not kill everyone off, but it would certainly soften up their armed forces if they got diseased from drinking water etc. then there's all the kinds of things that happen naturally on our own planet, volcano's, hurricanes, tornado's, earthquakes and the millions of bloody insects and bacteria that are quite happy to kill us.
Also, don't take it personally any of you lot
trolling other cultures is a British persons favourite passtime, we can't help it Just look at the chart. As long as you can read numbers it should be clear.
Ok, I am looking at the chart.
Is it two separate religions or just one? Why did they stop calling it global warming and now refer to it as climate change? Will climate change combine the two religions?
Ooooh!
I too can do that! Look at this chart and see how I might pick the section from early 1990 to 1994.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/may-2013-global-surface-landocean-temperature-anomaly-update/
Getting your source material from a website that has an agenda, eh?
Just look at the chart. As long as you can read numbers it should be clear.
Ok, I am looking at the chart.
Is it two separate religions or just one? Why did they stop calling it global warming and now refer to it as climate change? Will climate change combine the two religions?
I guess I can see this happening. I can't say I've ever been put in a great mood being out in the heat, but how anyone can find the energy to rape in 100F weather is beyond me.
LOL!
Since these are U.S scientists ( bearing in mind this is a country with a population who genuinely believed the CERN collider could create a black hole ) I'm going to assume it's a load of bullshit, heat generally does affect mood etc. for people, I know I turn into a right grumpy fucker when it gets hot ( currently 20+ degrees here ) but it doesn't make me want to go around raping and assaulting people and yes. One of the bullshit signals for me was how the hell would people have the energy to do that in this heat?
All Americans are stupid right? I don't believe that CERN could create a black hole and I don't know anyone who does.Now keep in mind, I'm writing this from my trailer in the backwoods of Virginia with my third grade 'murican education, but hopefully your cultured mind could at least try and understand the gibberish I'm about to spout. And if I don't respond it's because my inbred sister got loose and is chewing on the internet cables (again!).
I believe that climate change could lead to increased violence, and here's why:
Increased (or unpredictable) temperature leads to more droughts, more droughts lead to famine, and famine of course will lead to violence. The most recent famine caused by drought was in Somalia and other eastern African nations, (2011 East Africa Drought) and it led to increased tensions and violence. In Somalia's case, the influx of refugees from an already destablized nation led to increased violence and sexual abuse of women.
Deforestation (I'll use Haiti as an example) leads to more dangerous storms, leading to not only deaths from the actual storms but also from malnutrition, looting, and other violence in the aftermath.
I don't think that it's as simple as more heat=more violence, but climate change and destruction of the environment does lead to violence and death.
Haiti: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/haiti.asp
East Africa Drought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_East_Africa_drought
......
As for climate change my opinion is this, it is incredibly arrogant for anyone to claim they know anything about the Earth from barely a century's worth of data, the planet is millions of years old as far as we know so it's a bit like with religious people where they claim the earth only existed for a few thousand years because their bible was written that time ago.
The 'millions' is a typo, but you are sort of right. Many of the planetary epochs do not pertain to current day climate, the last some million years certainly are similar. And they are dominated by ice ages, with periods of warm weather in between.As for climate change my opinion is this, it is incredibly arrogant for anyone to claim they know anything about the Earth from barely a century's worth of data, the planet is millions of years old as far as we know so it's a bit like with religious people where they claim the earth only existed for a few thousand years because their bible was written that time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
Ice ages, like doomsday asteroids, and like Carrington events, are truly something to be feared. Unlike asteroids and Carrington events, there is no reason to attempt to prepare for an ice age.
But the consequences of "global cooling" would be a thousand times worse than any issues from a 2C temperature rise.
So yeah, if you want to get on the new trendy cause, try out global cooling. Do your share to save the planet. After all, we've only got one. And if the world population shrinks by 99%, there would be a lot less crime and rapes in the world.
Well fuck me but you get my point I'm sure
but you get my point I'm sure I do, but had to fix that one
Well fuck me but you get my point I'm sure
but you get my point I'm sure I guess I can see this happening. I can't say I've ever been put in a great mood being out in the heat, but how anyone can find the energy to rape in 100F weather is beyond me.
LOL!
Since these are U.S scientists ( bearing in mind this is a country with a population who genuinely believed the CERN collider could create a black hole ) I'm going to assume it's a load of bullshit, heat generally does affect mood etc. for people, I know I turn into a right grumpy fucker when it gets hot ( currently 20+ degrees here ) but it doesn't make me want to go around raping and assaulting people and yes. One of the bullshit signals for me was how the hell would people have the energy to do that in this heat?
As for climate change my opinion is this, it is incredibly arrogant for anyone to claim they know anything about the Earth from barely a century's worth of data, the planet is millions of years old as far as we know so it's a bit like with religious people where they claim the earth only existed for a few thousand years because their bible was written that time ago.
The current concensus is that Earth is ~4.5 Billion years old not millions of years old.
I guess I can see this happening. I can't say I've ever been put in a great mood being out in the heat, but how anyone can find the energy to rape in 100F weather is beyond me.
LOL!
Since these are U.S scientists ( bearing in mind this is a country with a population who genuinely believed the CERN collider could create a black hole ) I'm going to assume it's a load of bullshit, heat generally does affect mood etc. for people, I know I turn into a right grumpy fucker when it gets hot ( currently 20+ degrees here ) but it doesn't make me want to go around raping and assaulting people and yes. One of the bullshit signals for me was how the hell would people have the energy to do that in this heat?
As for climate change my opinion is this, it is incredibly arrogant for anyone to claim they know anything about the Earth from barely a century's worth of data, the planet is millions of years old as far as we know so it's a bit like with religious people where they claim the earth only existed for a few thousand years because their bible was written that time ago.
I thought global cooling was the new thing. Are people still on the global warming fad?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
The early adopters have moved on to global cooling hysteria. They figured they'd get the best seats on the bandwagon.This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
But there's still a good group of the Warmers who are faithful .... to ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw
I can tell you're one of those who lets his political agenda formulate his opinion about science. I myself let science formulate my political views. I'd recommend you do the same, especially with regard to climate change.
HEIL! You vill belief as die climatfuhrer tellz you to belif or ve vill sent you to zee reedukation kamphs!
I thought global cooling was the new thing. Are people still on the global warming fad?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
The early adopters have moved on to global cooling hysteria. They figured they'd get the best seats on the bandwagon.This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
But there's still a good group of the Warmers who are faithful .... to ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw
I can tell you're one of those who lets his political agenda formulate his opinion about science. I myself let science formulate my political views. I'd recommend you do the same, especially with regard to climate change.
I thought global cooling was the new thing. Are people still on the global warming fad?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
The early adopters have moved on to global cooling hysteria. They figured they'd get the best seats on the bandwagon.This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
But there's still a good group of the Warmers who are faithful .... to ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw
Just look at the chart. As long as you can read numbers it should be clear.
I thought global cooling was the new thing. Are people still on the global warming fad?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
You are confused. Back in the '70s, about two scientists out of about 100,000 theorized that cooling was going to happen. Those that received (and still receive) money from Big Oil like to mention those two scientists and make the gullible believe they represented the consensus back then.
There was no confusion back then. And there's no confusion now. Global warming is real. So stop being confused.
I thought global cooling was the new thing. Are people still on the global warming fad?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
I guess I can see this happening. I can't say I've ever been put in a great mood being out in the heat, but how anyone can find the energy to rape in 100F weather is beyond me.
Rise in violence 'linked to climate change'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23538771
Quote
By Rebecca Morelle Science reporter, BBC World Service
Shifts in climate are strongly linked to increases in violence around the world, a study suggests.
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.
The team says with the current projected levels of climate change, the world is likely to become a more violent place.
The study is published in Science.
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.
Their examples include an increase in domestic violence in India during recent droughts, and a spike in assaults, rapes and murders during heatwaves in the US.
The report also suggests rising temperatures correlated with larger conflicts, including ethnic clashes in Europe and civil wars in Africa.
Biological root?
Mr Burke said: "We want to be careful, you don't want to attribute any single event to climate in particular, but there are some really interesting results."
The researchers say they are now trying to understand why this causal relationship exists.
"The literature offers a couple of different hints," explained Mr Burke.
"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. and there is lots of evidence that changes in economic conditions affect people's decisions about whether or not to join a rebellion, for example."
But he said there could also be a physiological basis, because some studies suggest that heat causes people to be prone to aggression.
"It is a major priority for future research to distinguish between what is going on in each particular situation."
The scientists say that with the current projected levels of climate change the world is likely to become a more violent place.
They estimate that a 2C rise in global temperature could see personal crimes increase by about 15%, and group conflicts rise by more than 50% in some regions.
However, other researchers have questioned whether climate breeds conflict.
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, the conflict was more highly correlated with other factors, such as high infant mortality, proximity to international borders and high local population density.
Shifts in climate are strongly linked to increases in violence around the world, a study suggests.
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.
The team says with the current projected levels of climate change, the world is likely to become a more violent place.
The study is published in Science.
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.
Their examples include an increase in domestic violence in India during recent droughts, and a spike in assaults, rapes and murders during heatwaves in the US.
The report also suggests rising temperatures correlated with larger conflicts, including ethnic clashes in Europe and civil wars in Africa.
Biological root?
Mr Burke said: "We want to be careful, you don't want to attribute any single event to climate in particular, but there are some really interesting results."
The researchers say they are now trying to understand why this causal relationship exists.
"The literature offers a couple of different hints," explained Mr Burke.
"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. and there is lots of evidence that changes in economic conditions affect people's decisions about whether or not to join a rebellion, for example."
But he said there could also be a physiological basis, because some studies suggest that heat causes people to be prone to aggression.
"It is a major priority for future research to distinguish between what is going on in each particular situation."
The scientists say that with the current projected levels of climate change the world is likely to become a more violent place.
They estimate that a 2C rise in global temperature could see personal crimes increase by about 15%, and group conflicts rise by more than 50% in some regions.
However, other researchers have questioned whether climate breeds conflict.
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, the conflict was more highly correlated with other factors, such as high infant mortality, proximity to international borders and high local population density.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23538771
Jump to: