UPDATE: WUWT commenter P Wilson points out one single map that refutes this entire theory, see below the “read more” at the end of the post. – Anthony
To add to the Numberwatch big list of things supposedly caused by global warming, there’s now an oddball “irrefutable” (their words) story circulating around the net since Friday from Craig Anderson, a psychologist from Iowa State university known for video game violence studies, shown at left.
A Google News search reveals a number of news outlets picking this story up. The source for all these stories seems to be this one article in Newswise:
Researchers Present Study on How Global Climate Change Affects Violence
In that article, they cite it as:
Released: 3/19/2010 1:00 PM EDT
Source: Iowa State University
Problem is when you go to Iowa State to look for the source of the press release, it can’t be found. For example look at the Iowa State News site at: http://www.news.iastate.edu/ it is not listed on the page, nor if you look at the release page http://www.news.iastate.edu/releases/ page. Or do a search using their search engine.
On that search I found a vignette done apparently on Feb 26th, but no official Iowa State news release. Here’s the meat of the vignette, which looks like it was written for an internal newsletter:
He found that increases in average annual temperature or global warming, has an increasing effect on murders and assaults in this country, even after controlling for a variety of other factors.
“For every one degree increase in average temperature, we can expect an increase of 4.58 additional murders and assault cases per every 100,000 people,” Anderson said.
“There are obviously other factors involved,” he continued. “I would never claim that temperature alone would be the main factor that causes violent crime to be higher. However, there is now considerable evidence from a variety of sources that suggesting that high temperature is one cause that contributes to violent behavior, including violent criminal activity.”
Note to Anderson: correlation is not causation
Iowa State’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences news page also does not list the story about Anderson’s claims on global warming driving increased violence. I did find a mention that Anderson has a paper in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science but the latest 2010 edition is apparently not online.
It appears Anderson may have done his own press release, because I certainly haven’t been able to find any evidence that Iowa State official made any sort of news release of Friday March 19th, as cited by the “ground zero” Newswise story.
It is odd that Iowa State doesn’t have any official release. Maybe something will turn up Monday at the Iowa State News site.
In the meantime, his last offical news release on video games and violence gets a thorough drubbing from Techdirt:
===================================
from the except-for-the-details dept
excerpt:
So it seems a bit ridiculous for anyone — especially a professor who has been solidly on one side of the debate for many years, to stand up and claim that he has conclusively shown that violent video games make kids more “aggressive” (found via Slashdot). First, note the choice of words: not violent, but aggressive. Iowa State psychology professor Craig Anderson, who has already staked his reputation on saying that violent video games have a negative impact on kids, isn’t about to back down. He claims that he went through 130 studies and concluded that the support is unequivocal:
“We can now say with utmost confidence that regardless of research method — that is experimental, correlational, or longitudinal — and regardless of the cultures tested in this study [East and West], you get the same effects,” said Anderson, who is also director of Iowa State’s Center for the Study of Violence. “And the effects are that exposure to violent video games increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior in both short-term and long-term contexts. Such exposure also increases aggressive thinking and aggressive affect, and decreases prosocial behavior.”
Of course, reality is a bit more fuzzy. The same journal that is publishing Anderson’s new paper is also publishing a commentary from other researchers who disagree and suggest that Anderson has a pretty bad selection bias problem. But the biggest problem — as we noted above, is that all of these “violent video games are bad” studies seem to show incredibly weak effects that don’t appear to be significant in any meaningful way. As the commentary shows:
Psychology, too often, has lost its ability to put the weak (if any) effects found for VVGs on aggression into a proper perspective. In doing so, it does more to misinform than inform public debates on this issue.
Meanwhile, just last year, two Harvard Medical School professors also went through a whole bunch of different studies on violent video games and came to the exact opposite conclusions as Anderson did. It found little actual evidence to support Anderson’s claims, and found significant problems with research suggesting there was a serious link between violent video games and actual violence. Among that report’s findings:
- In the last 10 years, video games studies have been overwhelmingly popular compared to studies on other media.
- Less than half of studies (41%) used well validated aggression measures.
- Poorly standardized and unreliable measures of aggression tended to produce the highest effects, possibly because their unstandardized format allows researchers to pick and choose from a range of possible outcomes.
- The closer aggression measures got to actual violent behavior, the weaker the effects seen.
- Experimental studies produced much higher effects than correlational or longitudinal studies. As experimental studies were most likely to use aggression measures of poor quality, this may be the reason why.
- There was no evidence that video games produce higher effects than other media, despite their interactive nature.
- Overall, effects were negligible, and we conclude that media violence generally has little demonstrable effect on aggressive behavior.
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention. Dr. Anderson has apparently embraced a whole new type of science called “Human Thermodynamics”. Here’s an encyclopedia cover at the EoHT Wiki of which he is a member:
There’s even has an equation to quantify the human thermodynamic effect, nicely presented in a non-violent manner. From the EoHT Wiki main page:
Tattoo (or inking) of the Clausius inequality; photo by Marco Fantoni (March, 2008); an example of art thermodynamics. In the photo, showing a hand holding both a new and burnt match, “the hand represents the capacity of the human mind to analyze and understand natural phenomena [such as] the power and imperative of irreversibility.” [3]
He found that increases in average annual temperature or global warming, has an increasing effect on murders and assaults in this country, even after controlling for a variety of other factors.
“For every one degree increase in average temperature, we can expect an increase of 4.58 additional murders and assault cases per every 100,000 people,” Anderson said.
“There are obviously other factors involved,” he continued. “I would never claim that temperature alone would be the main factor that causes violent crime to be higher. However, there is now considerable evidence from a variety of sources that suggesting that high temperature is one cause that contributes to violent behavior, including violent criminal activity.”
UPDATE: WUWT commenter P Wilson shares this map circa 2009 and asks:
What does it show? Rather than Austrialia havin inexorable crime rate, the highest crime rates seem to be in relatively cool countries.
WUWT?
Indeed, according to the map, the top ten countries for crime are:
1. Iceland
2. Sweden
3. New Zealand
4. Grenada
5. Norway
6. England and Wales
7. Denmark
8. Finland
9. Scotland
10. Canada
With the exception of Grenada, all are cooler climate countries. So much for Dr. Anderson’s theory of heat in the form of AGW = crime.
Maybe that’s why Iowa State never published a press release, they were just too embarrassed to do so.
Jason (08:31:42) :
That crime rate map is so biased!
I’m not defending the map, as I usually take such things with a pinch of snuff, but crime rate is usually defined as ‘crime per 100,000’ normalizing the crime being measured, as the map states.
But, it doesn’t really indicate what a ‘crime’ actually is (perhaps Iceland has a lot of jaywalkers going to jail, or being fined…). It also is an indicator of the effectiveness of crime reporting and not necessarily crimes.
While I know, from doing my own research, that crime in the US is far lower than people believe, I do think this map pushes the boundary of credibility.
John Galt (06:18:34) :
I lived in southern Nevada for a few years and people tended to be less active when it was really hot out.
Even criminals take siestas.
Not that I’m saying Nevadians (?) are criminals… 😛
I’m glad to see that the reported crime rate map was well criticized. It demonstrates that Climate Skeptics unlike the warmists won’t accept any crap even if it marginally supports the skeptics point. The eco-maniac crowd will uncritically accept any absurdity if it advances their agenda.
Mooloo (21:50:06) :
I seem to recall Michael Moore (now shoot me because this is a dubious reference, as I am the first to admit) saying that Canadian gun ownership per capita is higher than in the USA, but the murder rate is far lower. These would be interesting stats to verify.
I couldn’t find anything to verify this as fact when it was pronounced by Moore himself. But even so, it’s ironic that if this statement were true, then it would act against what he was campaigning for. That is it’s Americans which kill one another at a much higher rate than Canadians, irrespective of gun ownership or distribution.
When you attach an emotion to a cause, you can say or do anything to support that cause and it will be accepted as a reason to further that cause. I thought Gun Ownership was that ‘perfect storm’, but Global Warming/Climate Change is ramping up to push it out from the number one spot.
@ur momisugly OceanTwo (09:07:13) :
Don’t make me smack you! 😉
I agree with most of what you have said. Another poster said @ur momisugly MrPete (09:14:35) : essentially the same things. Crime statistics is one way to look at why this paper is bunk. Another is the actual reasons people commit crime. Violence is not caused by temperature. Junk science.
The problem here is associating crime with violent behavior.
A death metal concert can be very violent, but it’s not a crime.
Likewise, in the USA we pride ourselves to have the finest white-collar criminals in the world, they’re in congress. They’re not very violent people.
CRIME: Venezuela and its capital, Caracas, are reported to both have among the highest per capita murder rates in the world
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1059.html#crime
That’s Chavez’ Social Paradise: Social Justice’s revolutions provokes crimes’ increase
Evidently CO2 in the air is associated with SOME psychological changes; look at all the cranks that have appeared out of nowhere ever since people noticed CO2 levels in the air have risen
I’m confident that the investigator under consideration here was at one time a rational individual; I don’t know what else to suggest
It seems obvious that when it’s cold outside most of us prefer the indoors, particularly at night – probably when most crime would otherwise be taking place. Nobody on the street would seem to indicate not much crime. On the other hand, in the warm months, everybody is out on the streets. There’s gonna be more violence.
Not to worry. The coming ice age will keep us indoors – at least until we have to get out and compete with the polar bears for food.
Chris, you talk through your bottom. England and Wales are not socialist countries, they are rampant free market capitalist countries. And what petty crime did you see that made Baltimore or south Philly look safe, huh? did somebody cut you up at the traffic lights, or ring your doorbell and run away?
If you want to look at the effect of socialism on crime rates, go to North Korea. It could be the only socialist country left.
Robert E. Phelan (22:44:25) :
No offence was ever taken BTW – if anything I was being a tad pedantic about the use of the word rate… I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion. I always assumed you knew what you were talking about.
Robert E. Phelan (07:53:49)
Henry chance (08:54:23)
Good points
Violence/Crime -requires definition please
Blue collar
White collar
Individuals eg homicide, manslaughter
Groups [victims or perpetrators] eg mass slaughter, genocide
isms eg racism, genderism, ethnicism
Data collection agencies and sets:
Police eg reported offences, successful charges,
Criminal courts – lists of offences, successful prosecutions
Community courts (community orders after face-to face victim/perpetrator); local religious/cultural sentencing
Local NGOs or community groups and media reporting of work thereof
Statutory and/or regulatory bodies eg Environmental Protection Authorities (EPA), Consumer Complaints Commissions, professional associations, municipal public health (water, sewerage, food preparation/sale and disease) prosecutions etc
Unreported
What’s the metadata premise?
Rule of law
Respect for individual
Democratic principles/processes
Freedom of speech
Law/Justice and Governance structures inc transparency n accountability with separation of powers
Citizens regard for above?
“Rupert (14:27:23) :
I presume that free access to firearms has nothing to do with the murder rate in the US…?”
I don’t think there is any question that there is a relationship–incidents like the massacre at the Von Maur store (in a gun-free zone) here a few years ago.
There is at least one case documented where a trained person had a clear (all senses of the word) shot at the killer after the first murder. But was helpless because he was not allowed to carry in the mall.
This is Science???!!!
I just saw this on Science Daily:
Bird Bones May Be Hollow, but They Are Also Heavy
ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2010) — For centuries biologists have known that bird bones are hollow, and even elementary school children know that bird skeletons are lightweight to offset the high energy cost of flying. Nevertheless, many people are surprised to learn that bird skeletons do not actually weigh any less than the skeletons of similarly sized mammals. In other words, the skeleton of a two-ounce songbird weighs just as much as the skeleton of a two-ounce rodent.
It remind me of the old joke: What weighs more a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?
Is this for real? Or have we gone down the rabbit hole?
I’d guess that I would need to know the volume of air displaced by the bird and the rodent before I could say anything intelligent.
Seems to me that the bird might have more weight in feathers than the rodent does in fur, for example. How many ounces of water in each?
I am guessing that the pound of feathers displaces more air than rhw pound of lead does.
Yes, a pound of lead and a pound of feathers both weigh a pound.
A two ounce bird weighs the same as a two ounce rodent…
… but the bird could be 3 feet tall and the rodent 2 inches.
It’s over all density will be different.
This is the first lesson in any science text book… density…
How could this even get published?
Is is me? Am I crazy?
davidmhoffer (08:23:37) :
Your point is acknowledged, but it also serves to reinforce the point another commenter made that comparisons across jurisdictions are sketchy at best. Different societies define crime differently, even when they use the same names. Methods and mechanisms for reporting are uneven. Here in the U. S., the official crime statistic is the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, which is based on reports from all law-enforcement jurisdictions in the country… except that it covers only eight categories of street crime and not all jurisdictions report. Here in Connecticut, for example, almost half the jurisdictions don’t report, including the city of New Haven. Kind of skews the statistics, but we have to work with the information we have and acknowledge its shortcomings (something Michael Mann and Keith Briffa might want to ponder).
The point of the thread was that a psychologist specializing in violence linked global warming to a specific increase in criminal acts of violence. That, to put it charitably, is a stretch. Posting a map that “disproves” the good professor is also a stretch. The subject is a great deal more complex and cannot be settled in a few comments, as the length of this comment thread attests. For what it’s worth, and despite your distaste for some of their cultural practices, they do seem to have lower over-all crime rates in Saudi Arabia and Qatar than we do in America.
Rupert (14:27:23) :
I presume that free access to firearms has nothing to do with the murder rate in the US…?
Cross-cultural comparisons, as well as before-after comparisons here in the States suggest not (although, to be fair, there are others that do – the evidence is not conclusive either way and I suspect that many researchers find exactly what they were prepared to find in the first place).
Well just one look at that guy, and you can see you don’t want to turn your back on him.
And in good old NZ, we are so sick of stupid people, that we just have to go after every one we meet; hence the large number of people who get tossed in the harbour; and we have lots of harbours. That’s where the saying about “Harbouring Criminals” comes from.
He found that increases in average annual temperature or global warming, has an increasing effect on murders and assaults in this country, even after controlling for a variety of other factors.
I wonder if he controlled for Drug Prohibition?
Yes, a pound of lead and a pound of feathers both weigh a pound.
But they will not have the same mass due to the buoyancy of air.
Rhys Jaggar (07:39:38) :
CB1 receptors are thought to be the most widely expressed G protein-coupled receptors in the brain.
From the wiki on CB1
The amygdala has a particularly high concentration of CB1 receptors.
Veronica (England) (16:20:19) :
The variant of socialism where the government doesn’t nationalize the means of production but controls it through law and regulation is called fascism.
As some coal miners and steel mill workers often wryly observe, “Sure, and the Pope isn’t Catholic.” There was a recent news article someplace, don’t remember where, which asserted Britain’s economy was more socialized by nationalization than some East European nations while they were still under Communist governments controlled by the Soviet Union. Despite the undoing of part of the nationalized economy of Britain, there is no shortage of Brits who are voting with their feet to emigrate to a less socialist nation at the rate of about 3 people per day, and many who are quite vocal about Britain’s status as a so-called Democratic socialist government.
As for the violent crime, there are innumerable sources reporting the consequences of the current state of affairs. One of the really poignant stories was the British family who worked so hard for so many years to save the money needed to restore and remodel their home during the Christmas holidays only to find illegal immigrants illegally squatting in their home upon their return home. Adding insult to injury, the police authorities were unkind and insulting to the family when they complained about the trespassing thieves being illegal immigrants. Refusing to promptly evict the trespassers, the family owning the home were in dire risk of becoming homeless in the streets themselves if the authorities continued to refuse to evict the trespassers.
Perhaps the BBC is not reporting this news?
That is rather dumb.
BUT just because people are bieng wierd
doesnt make climate change fake!
The problem is that people dont like to think that stuff is thier fault and that it might take something called WORK to make it right again.
Unfortunatly people will continue bieng stupid untill it actually shows how dire the situation is a.k.a untill its too late.
ever been mugged by an eskimo?