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.
Trying to pigeonhole everyone again? Do you agree with everything every AGW supporter says?
As I just posted above, such a statement is like saying that summer is warmer than winter. The LIA was a known colder period for a good portion of the planet, now it’s not so cold. No argument from me, but, it’s not global. Wasn’t global then, isn’t global now. Global Average Temperature is meaningless.
agweird says (August 30, 2011 at 3:40 am): “My point was that even if a change in a factor gave positive effects in the past, one cannot simply assume that the same change in the factor gives the same effect, and not even positive at all, in the future.”
Nor can one assume it won’t. In fact, all indications are that a resumption of warming would be beneficial, e.g. longer growing season, fewer cold-related deaths, milder winters, etc.
BTW, the hunting analogy is flawed, as “global warming” isn’t something we can “use up”; it’s either there or not.
Gary Hladik says:
“Nor can one assume it won’t. In fact, all indications are that a resumption of warming would be beneficial, e.g. longer growing season, fewer cold-related deaths, milder winters, etc.
BTW, the hunting analogy is flawed, as “global warming” isn’t something we can “use up”; it’s either there or not.”
Yes. But this also includes beneficial for unwanted organisms, which we have observed might be very problematic for us (invasive species etc.).
About the analogy: I am sorry if I made myself unclear. It was the hunting that was an analogy to the global warming, not the animal population.
The point was that an identical disturbance may be beneficial for a population in one situation, but may be disastrous in a different situation.
This is true for ecosystems, and since I believe our society is largely dependent on ecosystem services, and that a lack of these will cause conflicts, I believe it is true for the human society too.
Thus, Tertrais’ argument is flawed, in my opinion.
tom t;
a space alien abduction of Paul Krugman would greatly boost the economy! As long as they reamed him out good before returning him.
Hugh P;
You really can’t see the irrationality of saying, in the same breath, that present circumstances are unprecedented and that thus we should take lessons from history (as misrepresented and fudged in the Nature report)?
Heh-hee-hah-ho-har-de-har!
Who needs wars when you have bureaucrats?
They are much more efficient at killing.
And oddly, the same ones pushing CAGW. You would think they would have a belly full of it…you’d be wrong!