From the Center for Strategic and International Studies The Washington Quarterly, a total takedown of the myth that wars and climate change are linked as claimed by this ridiculous study from Columbia University we covered last week titled: That darned warm-mongering El Niño. Then there’s a book written about the issue as well shown at left.
The Climate Wars Myth, by Dr. Bruno Tertrais
The first decade of the 21st century was the hottest since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Global warming is real and, if present trends continue, its possible effects worry publics and governments around the world. Could it foster armed conflict for resources such as food and water? Will Western armies be increasingly called upon to mitigate the effects of natural catastrophes, humanitarian disasters, and floods of refugees?
Think tanks have enthusiastically embraced this new field of research, and militaries around the world are now actively studying the possible impact of a warming planet on global security. Books with titles such as Climate Wars predict a bleak future.1 A well-known French consultant claims that a five degree Celsius increase in average global temperature would generate no less than a ‘‘bloodbath.’’ Former World Bank economist Lord Nicholas Stern the author of the 2006 ‘‘Stern Report’’ on the possible economic impact of climate change even declares that failing to deal with climate change decisively would lead to ‘‘an extended world war.’’
However, there is every reason to be more than circumspect regarding such dire predictions. History shows that ‘‘warm’’ periods are more peaceful than ‘‘cold’’ ones.
In the modern era, the evolution of the climate is not an essential factor to explain collective violence. Nothing indicates that ‘‘water wars’’ or floods of ‘‘climate refugees’’ are on the horizon. And to claim that climate change may have an impact on security is to state the obvious but it does not make it meaningful for defense planning.
What History Teaches Us
Since the dawn of civilization, warmer eras have meant fewer wars. The reason is simple: all things being equal, a colder climate meant reduced crops, more famine and instability. Research by climate historians shows a clear correlation between increased warfare and cold periods. They are particularly clear in Asia and Europe, as well as in Africa.
Interestingly, the correlation has been diminishing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution: as societies modernize, they become less dependent on local agricultural output.
Read the entire paper here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Climate change causes all sorts of straw clutching but little else.
Lets see:
“Damn its hot; Let’s just relax under this nice shady apple tree and munch on an apple at the same time.”
Or
“Damn its cold, and there’s no fruit on the trees; Lets go and raid Farmer Obama’s orchard. He’s still got fruit on his trees.”
Yes, I can see how climate may cause wars.
In my country they are using this for tax Revenue ..they can not change any thing but it is a way to take money from the hard working people
Umm…
The really interesting lesson to take from this is not that “Climate Change causes Wars”.
It is that:
“Once a large industry is established, and lots of people are making a living out of it, it will use any justification that it can to persist”
The military and security forces are a large industry. They had a good justification for existing in 1939-1945. They had a reasonable justification for existing in 1945-1970ish. By 1995 they had very little reason for existing, which was why the attack in 2001 was seized upon as a renewed justification.
By now, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Note that Climate Change is now also a Big Industry ™……
You can’t say climate wars. George Lucas will sue you for that.
There is more of anger and greed than hunger and climate in the history of human conflict, but when ‘great’ men need a reason, one is really just as good as any other.
Since the dawn of civilization, warmer eras have meant fewer wars.
The exact opposite of what the Warmists tell us then.
Interestingly, the correlation has been diminishing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution: as societies modernize, they become less dependent on local agricultural output.
What? Industrialisation is a good thing? Who knew! The exact opposite of what the Warmists tell us then.
“climate change causes wars” may not be false.
Global warming causes wars.
Global cooling causes wars.
One of those statements may be true.
“The first decade of the 21st. Century was the hottest since the start of the Indusrtial Revolution.”
Says who?
I always find it funny when the proponents of CAGW use the attributes of a cold or cooling world to describe the effects of global warming.
It’s because when it gets warmer, everyone starts growing grapes.
BTW – Didn’t some of the warmists admit that crops would increase for the first 20-30 years of their epic man-caused warming disaster? And with that warming seemingly delayed for maybe 10-20 years, that would mean that 40-50 years from now, earth warming might (worst case) have brought us close to maximum food production.
And if we are lucky, population will have leveled off by then, and science and technology will have advanced enough to 1) more fully understand earth climate and 2) have the wealth, technology and energy flexibility to deal possible warming issues – without impoverishing mankind.
A world free of war and conflict leaves me feeling warm and fuzzy.
The real reason for this report being published in Nature last week was to give the eco-journalists an excuse not to mention the CERN/CLOUD result.
I doubt even the warmists really believed it … they just needed it that week!
Look what happened to Ireland…the potato famine. When I was a boy I used to marvel at all the ruins of cottages in the west and northwest of ireland…it was all so bleak and cold, how could so many people for several centuries have survived on an agrarian economy…
The Great Migration of the Irish to the US in the 1830s 40s 50s was a direct result of ‘climate change’.
There, I’ve thrown down the gauntlet!
No. Politicians cause wars.
It is extremely embarrassing to admit that Gwynne Dyer is, in fact, a Canadian. Although, considering the make up of our political class quite understandable. Nowadays, Dyer spends his time amidst the privileged far left of the United Kingdom, a pool in which he is well suited to swim. The man spent years trying very hard to change history from what it was into what he wanted it to be, but never quite pulled it off in any convincing way. Pretty much just a bunch of overwrought hyperbole really — very long on supposition and very short of facts. It did not surprise me that Dyer would attempt to curry favour among like minded misanthropes, which his “book” makes amply plain. He can be fun to listen too though, as his Newfie brogue is easy on the ears — that is, as long as one does not actually listen to what he is saying.
Simply put, cold kills in more ways than heat.
Dr. Pielke Sr. discusses similar attempts to connect an increase of conflict to climate change in the future here and in the past here, with a follow-up on the latter here.
Watching Cspan’s Book TV I stumbled onto Christian Parenti, contributing editor of The Nation – shilling for the IPCC.
“Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence
“http://www.booktv.org/Program/12717/Tropic+of+Chaos+Climate+Change+and+the+New+Geography+of+Violence.aspx
MWHITE@ur momisugly
Global warming causes wars.
Global cooling causes wars.
************************************
People cause wars.
Whether or not the war is fought to gain food/power it is people that are at fault.
They may seek to apportion the blame to many things, warming/cooling/wet/dry climate, it is but an excuse.
If one wants to lead a war, any excuse is good. Why not blame it on climate?
This is a clear Illustration of a warm climate vs. cold:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Napoleons_retreat_from_moscow.jpg/300px-Napoleons_retreat_from_moscow.jpg
CO2 production prevents wars. Currently CO2 produces 10 to 15% more food in the 390ppm anthropogenic world we live in, then in the pre industrial 280ppm world. Without this additional CO2 we would need far more land and water devoted to food then we have developed. There would be massive starvation and likely wars. Unlike the ever failing claims of CO2 disaster, this benefit is a current fact.
But wait, wars are good things, there was a report that nuclear war would cool the planet, and Paul Krugman declared that a space alien attack would help the economy.
Talking about this silly theory if wars or space alien attacks help the economy then Irene should have helped it too. Expect to see Obama give credit to Irene of the improved economy.
JohnMJohnM says:
August 29, 2011 at 6:17 am
“Egyptian families are having to get up at dawn each day to queue up for bread rations, as the country struggles to cope with grain shortages that threaten a major political crisis.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/2787714/Egyptians-riot-over-bread-crisis.html
“How the rising price of corn made Mexicans take to streets”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/how-the-rising-price-of-corn-made-mexicans-take-to-streets-454260.html
Although possibly caused by biofuel policies food shortages due to poor harvests would probably have a similar effect. People make their feelings known to their governments (They could always stay at home and starve)