CO2, is there anything it can’t do? Add it to the list.
Over at WaPo, they call them “supersized”. From Counsel and Heal News (h/t to Gene Doebley):
Carbon To Blame for Oversized Blue Crabs
The use of genetic engineering or steroid enhancements to enlarge certain food products has been popular but highly controversial in the history of the food industry. Based on new research, it seems like certain animals, such as the blue crabs, have found another way of growing that does not require a lab setting. According to research, the side effects of pollution, particularly the emission of carbon dioxide, can lead to oversized blue crabs. Researchers found a link between the growing size of these crustaceans and the growing rate of carbon found in the waters. Although these crabs are growing bigger and faster without the help of scientists, this trend might not be safe for the marine environment.
Hmmm. They seem a little unclear on the giant crab mechanism:
Although carbon dioxide is emitted into the air, it dissolves into the water and saturates the oceans with carbon, which can change how these marine ecosystems work. Saturated waters become acidic, which is detrimental for certain marine animals, such as oysters and corals. These living creatures have calcium carbonate shells, which forms at a much slower rate when the waters become acidic, even if it is only by a small amount. Meanwhile, other creatures, particularly the blue crabs, thrive on the carbon in the water.
…
“Higher levels of carbon in the ocean are causing oysters to grow slower, and their predators – such as blue crabs – to grow faster,” said marine geologist, Justin Baker Ries from the University of North Carolina.
Full story here
Lessee, oysters grow slower, so they won’t reach breeding maturity and replace themselves as fast, and somehow this makes the crabs grow faster?
Maybe this is why it doesn’t make sense, from WaPo, it is recycled news:
The research showing the effects of carbon on marine organisms was published in the journal Geology in 2009. The study, led by Ries and co-authored with Anne L. Cohen and Daniel C. McCorkle, and found that crabs, lobsters and shrimp grew bigger more rapidly as carbon pollution increased. Chesapeake blue crabs grew nearly four times faster in high-carbon tanks than in low-carbon tanks.
Seafood lovers rejoice!
But, ah, another “not in the real world, aka ocean” experiment conducted in tanks. No mention of “giant, oversized, or supersized crabs” in the paper it seems. We’ve been down this road before with “tanked” experiments where they try to extrapolate captive life experiments to the real ocean.
Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification
Abstract
Anthropogenic elevation of atmospheric carbon dioxide (pCO2) is making the oceans more acidic, thereby reducing their degree of saturation with respect to calcium carbonate (CaCO3). There is mounting concern over the impact that future CO2-induced reductions in the CaCO3 saturation state of seawater will have on marine organisms that construct their shells and skeletons from this mineral. Here, we present the results of 60 d laboratory experiments in which we investigated the effects of CO2-induced ocean acidification on calcification in 18 benthic marine organisms. Species were selected to span a broad taxonomic range (crustacea, cnidaria, echinoidea, rhodophyta, chlorophyta, gastropoda, bivalvia, annelida) and included organisms producing aragonite, low-Mg calcite, and high-Mg calcite forms of CaCO3. We show that 10 of the 18 species studied exhibited reduced rates of net calcification and, in some cases, net dissolution under elevated pCO2. However, in seven species, net calcification increased under the intermediate and/or highest levels of pCO2, and one species showed no response at all. These varied responses may reflect differences amongst organisms in their ability to regulate pH at the site of calcification, in the extent to which their outer shell layer is protected by an organic covering, in the solubility of their shell or skeletal mineral, and in the extent to which they utilize photosynthesis. Whatever the specific mechanism(s) involved, our results suggest that the impact of elevated atmospheric pCO2 on marine calcification is more varied than previously thought.
- Received 7 March 2009.
- Revision received 16 July 2009.
- Accepted 21 July 2009.
PDF here: http://www.unc.edu/~jries/Ries_et_al_09_Geology_Mixed_Responses_to_Ocean_Acidification_full.pdf
Carbon dioxide supposedly causes hot weather, cold weather, droughts, floods, storms, lack of storms, increase of ice coverage, melting of ice and the list goes on. Now we find that it causes big crabs and small oysters. I wonder why the higher carbon dioxide (AKA acidification) didn’t disolve their shells, as we have been warned about. Rubbish!
I am still trying to get my head around traumatized oysters. Really?? Do they need counseling, at least if they survived the onslaught? I always thought they had a very primitive nervous system, and no brain to speak of. Traumatized??
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Now, if any real scientists are reading this, will you please help those with limited abilities to understand?
===
Well ok, but you have to pay attention:
This is exactly the way those endangered soon to be extinct corals do it…
You know, the ones that are dying from bleaching……..
“These varied responses may reflect differences amongst organisms in their ability to regulate pH at the site of calcification, in the extent to which their outer shell layer is protected by an organic covering, in the solubility of their shell or skeletal mineral, and in the extent to which they utilize photosynthesis.”
Sorry Bill Illis but arthropod exoskeletons are made from chitin, not calcium carbonate etc.
“Chitin (C8H13O5N)n (pron.: /ˈkaɪtɨn/ KY-tin) is a long-chain polymer of a N-acetylglucosamine, a derivative of glucose”
Other_Andy says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm
…….. who also refuse to believe in the overwhelming evidence of AGW?
Now that’s a strawman if I have ever seen one.
——–
In what possible way is that a straw man?
It’s a reality. Certain segments of the (mostly US) population refuse to accept overwhelming evidence for AGW. This still accounts for those segments who believe in various interpretations or reasons why AGW or CAGW isn’t occurring. Certainly there are those who have varying explanations (or lack thereof, basing their conclusions on hearsay or worse) for global warming. But basically, they’re denying the facts that credible science has overwhelmingly revealed. In that sense, they can all be grouped together as believers in something other than evidence science has revealed.
I don’t think you understand the concept of a straw man argument.
Check it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I think watcher needs to turn off the car before closing the garage door , seems to be a little crabby !
Watcher, unlike many alarmists, you must have a sense of humor.
Using the word science and IPCC in the same paragraph.
I don’t care who you are, that’s funny. (h/t to Larry the Cable Guy)
IPCC is a political organization …. they don’t need no stinking science.
Have you read how and why the organization exists? We have.
And referring to RealClimate.org and SkepticalScience.com as science sources, wow.
Were you involved with Lew and Cook and fake survey or did you get asked which editors should be canned for allowing skeptics to publish? No? Some alarmists were.
Thanks again, Watcher. Integrity from an alarmist, I needed a good laugh.
cn
Watcher,
Your comment @7:18 pm above is nothing but a series of baseless assertions:
“…overwhelming evidence for AGW”? Really? What scientific ‘evidence’, exactly?
And:
“…those segments who believe in various interpretations or reasons why AGW or CAGW isn’t occurring.” Another baseless assertion.
And:
“…basically, they’re denying the facts that credible science has overwhelmingly revealed.”
O really? What ‘facts’ would those be? That is simply another un-cited assertion.
And:
“…evidence science has revealed.”
What “evidence science has revealed”??
If it were not for baseless assertions, “Watcher” wouldn’t have much to say.
As the CAGW theory goes up in…ice…, there will be a concerted effort by the CAGW grant whores to switch the narrative from global warming (which hasn’t been happening into its 17th year) to: ocean acidification (aka inconsequential pH neutralization), propagandizing one-off weather events happening somewhere on the planet (purposefully avoiding any record snow/cold events of course) ye ol’ Ocean Heat Content and, of course, “catastrophic” sea rise (currently at around a scary 10″ per century..).
The CAGW grant whores are on the ropes and are doing a very poor job of channeling Ali’s “rope-a-dope” strategy. I guess they’re desperately hoping the empirical evidence will miraculously get tired.
They’re running out of time and options, especially with: the PDO in its 30-yr cooling phase, solar cycle #24 the lowest since 1906, SC #25 could be the lowest since the 1645-1715 Maunder Minimum and a 30-yr AMO cooling cycle starting around the time SC #25 starts… Ouch…
Regardless, CAGW theory has already been invalidated by their own criteria (NOAA’s 2008 State of Climate Report suggesting 15yrs of flat temperatures sufficient for model invalidation) and it’s only a matter of time before they’ll have to throw in the towel to at least try and save some modicum of credibility.
I expect we’ll see many more pal-reviewed papers like this one being rolled out as the grant whores futilely try to keep the hoax alive for as long as possible. So much grant money, so little time….It’s getting pathetic.
First they give us this statement of ravenous CO2 polluted crabs:
Then we get this statement of confused CO2 inebriated crabs:
Sounds like AGW. CO2 makes things warmer and colder at the same time, as well as making crabs eat more oysters and less at the same time.
And besides, crabs growing 4 times faster means a larger harvest and saves the endangered watermen of the Chesapeake.
Other_Andy says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm
Why is it that all natural climate change deniers bring this up, time after time?
‘Non-believers’ come is many shapes and forms and almost all believe in AGW, just not in CAGW.
—-
This brings up a highly relevant point about belief.
Belief largely is the purview of religion. People come to beliefs based on many factors, including evidence, hearsay, the persuasive power of their peers, associates, family, community members, and individual experience. Science, however, isn’t based on belief, but evidence and reason.
For example, many believe Jesus is a savior with superhuman powers to defy death, multiply dead creatures, heal wounds, etc.–despite ZERO supporting evidence of any miracle, life after death and so forth. Only scant evidence even allows for his physical existence. All of the rest is hearsay, not worth the paper it’s written on, except for historical value. Yet millions believe it. Nations and entire cultures have grown and been toppled for this and similar beliefs. The stunning power of an utter falsehood has destroyed uncountable lives.
Such is the power of belief: blind, dumb, angry, hating, fearing belief has caused more deaths and torture and societal disruption and dislocation in our world than anything combined. Yet it has molded our world and society more than any natural force. And belief in love for one’s neighbor (a quintessentially liberal idea) has molded society for the better. (Interestingly, there is scientific support for altruiism even in animals…which belies at least part of the “dog-eat-dog” belief about competition for survival.)
Skepticism of AGW is largely belief-based. Not science based.
However, support for the AGW theory is largely evidence-based, thus scientific and more grounded in reality.
Scientists using the scientific method take in all available evidence, create a working hypothesis to account for it, test the hypothesis, adjust it if it doesn’t work well, and keep re-evaluating and adjusting to fit more and more pertinent facts. If science kept discovering things that countered the prevailing evidence for AGW, it would publish and note those studies and evidence, and adapt the hypothesis accordingly. But it just doesn’t show up!
Most studies that show evidence against global warming, like those of Willie Soon and Patrick Michaels, to name a few egregious examples, have been debunked as deficient in methodology or evidence or both.
AGW skeptics however do the opposite. They believe studies that counter AGW evidence, despite the obvious (to qualified scientists) flaws and errors and cherry-picking in those discredited studies. (And certainly most lay persons don’t fully understand the science–so maybe it’s like rooting for the “underdog” to support those studies.) AGW skeptics cling to those bankrupt studies blindly, as if they believed dead, rotting fish were pet dogs that have been tossed overboard by mistake. This is a quintessential facet of religion, not science.
It’s weird to me. It’s as if skeptics seem to depend for their very lives on NEVER changing what core ideas they cling to–all based on opinions of their peers, community leaders, priests, friends, families, Fox News, or whatever they trust. It’s as if all of reality were only the tiny segment that fits their pre-existing worldview, not something that can be discovered and refined with new and mounting evidence. And the more conservative the individual, the less likely he/she can learn new things and adapt to change. The less likely they are to trust science, which is based on discovery and constant change based on hard evidence. Science itself is liberal in nature! Thus reality itself is liberal in nature.
I think it’s fear at work, controlling conservatives’ actions and beliefs. Fear of change, fear of obliteration, fear of invasion. They are wired that way. There’s a reason why it’s mostly conservatives who support open carry for guns, and oppose gun control laws, and support police and other measures designed to protect “Me.” According to one study, “Republicans had larger right amygdalas, which are associated with sensitivity to fear.” –http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03/conservatives-and-liberals-have-different-brains-studies-show/
Support for and understanding of science, vs. blind belief in unsupported ideas (like creationism and virgin birth and alien abduction) largely falls along lines marked “liberal” for the former and “conservative” for the latter. Not totally, but largely. Hence, if you’re liberal, you’re likely to make better sense with a wider range of ideas and understanding of the reality of the world than most conservatives. Again, generally, not universally.
It has also been shown that on average, liberals’ IQs are 7-10 points higher than conservatives’:
Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism:
“Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes.” –http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html
Another reason liberals support measure to counteract AGW has to do w/ the differences between liberal tendencies and conservative tendencies: “…the studies point toward conservatives’ tendency to avoid something called self-harm, while liberals avoid collective group harm.” This goes hand in hand with support for freedom of religion and for having no gun controls, and with liberal tendencies to support environmental and social justice causes to prevent harm to large and diverse groups in society, and have diffuse impacts (global warming being a prime example!) rather than specific impacts on local communities. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03/conservatives-and-liberals-have-different-brains-studies-show/
THE BOTTOM LINE:
AGW is real. BUT don’t just *believe* it. Test it. Again and again and again. Like science does. Science is self-correcting, since it always seeks the truth, and only reality can supply the truth.
Liberals are mostly smart; there are excellent reasons why smart liberals understand and support the science behind it. You may not be able to understand it because your brain may be wired differently. If you don’t understand this, you could be one of those without even the mental acuity to analyze your lack of mental acuity! Like Patrick from Spongebob ironically says, “Stupid people are always blissfully unaware of just how stupid they really are! (droooooool)”
For you who are stuck in AGW, CAGW or GW skepticism, never examining new facts, never thinking you could have missed something–you’re mired. You can’t learn and you can’t change. The facts *don’t matter*. You’ll keep sucking in only facts that fit The Main Idea stuck inside you (Protect Myself, Don’t Worry About Others?), always rejecting those facts that counter your rigid beliefs.
Facts you won’t be able, apparently, to accept, include the overwhelming number of dead, cold, hard facts that lead 97% of climate scientists to the conclusion that AGW is wrecking our planet, it’s happening NOW, and we have to do things to slow, stop and ideally reverse it.
It’s sad, but no one can teach you skeptics what you’re incapable of understanding. The best advice I can give is stay in church and be nice to other people. It’s the best you can do.
And that’s good enough…so long as you don’t overreach into the so-called global warming “debate.” Debate which, in a truly fact-based world, is totally unnecessary. Because debate over irrevocable facts isn’t debatable. The only debate possible is over interpretation of the facts in the bigger picture, in this case, the planetary climate. To quote the dumbest tautology in history, “It is what it is.” To finally put it as bluntly and succinctly as possible:
AGW IS.
Watcher? Are you backed by green financing to do this? You don’t have to answer, of course, that’s your business, I’m just trying to work out why you are here. You’ve come in angry and you seem to shout at everyone for the foolishness of our ways – yet you don’t provide what Anthony does and many others here do, which is direct links to DATA. We’re talking SCIENCE now, not what somebody claims or can show in a graph if they torture the facts enough.
You keep going on about overwhelming evidence, yet you don’t seem to be able to name it or point to it (or any segment of it). The “proof” needs to be the science, the data, the methods that can be examined, replicated, or torn apart. If we can’t tear it apart – hey, it might be robust. That’s what science is about – testing and questioning and yes, a whole heap of skepticism.
I’m sure you’ll understand that, given it does not seem to be your intention to educate any of us, I can only conclude that you are here to ensnare newbies into doubting the genuine science of this site and others like it, and point them in the direction of sites that back the CAGW consensus (sic).
Tell me I’m wrong and point to that one piece of paper that scientifically supports your “overwhelming evidence”. It shouldn’t be hard to do, you are so sure, after all.
It also surprises me that you should accept the decades of poor behaviour of “climate scientists”, the dodging of questions, the hiding the methods, the destrustion of data, the lying, the cheating and the thieving – all seen, shown, even admitted to. Have you questioned any of that? Have you shown your anger their way? Does it not make you think twice when ALL of the government funding (billions of $$$) goes to alarmist claims and NONE to research against the meme?
As for warming, even the IPCC has seen fit to publish there has been none for a longer period than the initial warming used to trigger the panic (which, I believe was 13 years, I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong).
Just to repeat: Give us a link to that that one piece of paper that scientifically supports your “overwhelming evidence”.
You’ve come to the wrong house to play “my science is bigger than your science.”
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 6:03 pm
I’m not doing research for you. More laziness on the part of readers here, anyone?? YUP. I’ve done research for 12 years on this issue. Can you say the same?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
12 years!! ROFL
Joseph Olsen said it all for me, I have made this same point in the past. I have a similar background to Joseph. I have been studying the environment and writing papers since the 60’s. Joseph used his real name and referenced his web site. Your nom de plume says it all.
Thanks WUWT for keeping it real. I learn something everyday and I get a few good guffaws too.
Watcher must be an English Professor or PhD Lit. student that hasn’t graduated yet …
Please for give me, but I prefer lobster 🙂
” Skepticism of AGW is largely belief-based. Not science based.
However, support for the AGW theory is largely evidence-based, thus scientific and more grounded in reality. ”
Jesus wept! Will someone please explain the scientific method to this poor deluded creature, in words of one syllable, so even he can understand it? Oh wait – maybe it’s a lady here. Watcher, is your name Susan by any chance? 🙂
Watcher apart, this thread is hilarious – on a day when we in the UK have felt desperate for a few laughs, given all the vitriol flying around. Watcher too is hilarious, in a sense; but such bone-headed ignorance makes me a bit sad. And it’s unkind to laugh at disability.
Watcher says:
“I don’t think you understand the concept of a straw man argument.”
Sure watcher.
You come here, tell me what I believe and deny, misrepresenting my position and tell me that is not a straw man.
You are confused, contrarian and contradictory person aren’t you Watcher.
Here is another example.
First you write that you “don’t claim to be an expert in anything but writing and editing.” and then you state that you’ve “done research for 12 years on this issue.”
Now, what is it Watcher?
And by the way (If true), nobody gives a hoot that you’ve “done research for 12 years on this issue.”
Dazzle us with facts and empirical research instead of trying to argue from authority.
That is another fallacy, an “Argumentum Ad Verecundiam”.
You might want to also look that up in Wikipedia…….
Watcher;
“Facts you won’t be able, apparently, to accept, include the overwhelming number of dead, cold, hard facts that lead 97% of climate scientists to the conclusion that AGW is wrecking our planet, it’s happening NOW, and we have to do things to slow, stop and ideally reverse it.”
Well, what to say to such an insulting “I’m Right and You’re Wrong” Diatribe?
Climate Science is a JOKE………………………………………….
AGW is an UNPROVEN hypothesis. The IR absorbing gases in the atmosphere simply act to DELAY the flow of energy though the Sun/Earth/Atmosphere/Universe System by causing some SMALL portion of the energy to make multiple passes through said system. This energy is travelling at the speed of light, which is STILL significantly faster that heat flows though any other material (water, soil or gas). This delay is on the order of a few tens of milliseconds, and since there are about 86 million milliseconds in each day this delay HAS NO EFFECT ON THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH.
Thanks for playing, now where are those delicious pan fried soft shelled crabs I ordered a while back ? (Moderators; can you make sure they make it to my table as soon as they come out of the kitchen, much obliged)
Cheers, Kevin.
Watcher, you did it again – you used the “overwhelming evidence” phrase.
Go on, no more weasel word essays please. I’m down to two bullet points ??? Is that too much to ask ??
Tick tock, tick tock.
Can I do it for you:
1) http://www.soundboard.com/sb/crickets_sounds_audio
2) http://www.soundboard.com/sb/crickets_sounds_audio
….. and by the way, since I got my Ph.D. in carbon chemistry at age 23, I’ve been writing peer-reviewed papers in Science, Nature, PNAS, Cell, JBC, Biochemistry, JOC, JCS, et al. for 35 years.
Go for it
ok, one more time….
IT’S NOT POLLUTION !!!!!
thanks for letting me vent.
Watcher
“Facts you won’t be able, apparently, to accept, include the overwhelming number of dead, cold, hard facts that lead 97% of climate scientists to the conclusion that AGW is wrecking our planet, it’s happening NOW, and we have to do things to slow, stop and ideally reverse it.”
Facts, where are the facts?
Are you really that uninformed that you are quoting that absolutely bogus ‘survey’ that has been thoroughly discredited?
And even if it was true that “97% of climate scientists came to the conclusion that AGW is wrecking our planet”, since when truth decided by consensus?
ANOTHER fallacy…..
Two surveys have purported to show that 97% of climate scientists supported the “consensus”. However, one survey was based on the views of just 77 scientists, far too small a sample to be scientific, and the proposition to which 75 of the 77 assented was merely to the effect that there has been warming since 1950.
The other paper did not state explicitly what question the scientists were asked and did not explain how they had been selected to remove bias. Evidentially, it was valueless.
[snip – multiple blog policy violations in this comment – mod]
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm
It will be a big test of Mr. Watts’ integrity if he posts my previous comment.
Not a big test,or a test of any kind. Did your computerr model tell you this?
Why not publish it? After all,it’s not like you are posting at SkS,Real(bwahahahaha) Climate,or any other fatuous eco-cultists site,who remove and ban EVERY thing posted by real skeptical people. Any who,thanks for the laughs.Great comedy show you got going there.
Watcher;
If the oil companies and the CIA believe in global warming due to human causes, and the latter are designing defense scenarios to deal with the fallout…you better believe it’s real. Only dummies don’t trust facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Uhm… is this the same CIA that was positive that Iraq had WMD’s? The same CIA that before that wanted the US government to prepare a defense strategy to deal with the impending ice age? That CIA? Or is there a different CIA that you are referring to?
@ur momisugly Watcher:
OK, this conservative historian of science will bite. You write:
“Such is the power of belief: blind, dumb, angry, hating, fearing belief has caused more deaths and torture and societal disruption and dislocation in our world than anything combined. Yet it has molded our world and society more than any natural force. And belief in love for one’s neighbor (a quintessentially liberal idea) has molded society for the better.”
Perhaps you should move beyond your “obviously” focus on science and look at a little history. Besides teaching courses on Darwinism, History of Science, History of Technology, Scientific Technology, and Environmental History I teach a course on Technology and Warfare, which has entailed becoming somewhat familiar with the sorry tale of humanity’s urge to wipe out other sections of humanity.
Let’s see: when millions were killed as China’s dynasties fell, through the cycles of dynasties from the 1st millenium onward, was religion at the root of the conflict?
How about when Cyrus the Great began the long cycle of aggresssion against other Mediterranean societies? Religion? How much of the Greek defence in the Persian wars was based on religion, or the destuctive Pelopponesian wars which brought Greek society so low that Philip of Macedonia walked all over Greek society. How about Alexander the Great’s humiliation of Persia? The wars between Rome and every other society around the Mediterranean? Geman defeats of ROman legions? A quick reading of Charles C. Mann’s 1491 – and it is in one sense highly depressing – reveals that the Americas were a bloodbath long before Columbus arrived.
Ghengis Khan’s mission of death and conquest was another bloodbath that had nothing to do with religion (neither had Attila the Huns at the end of the Roman period).
Yes, the Crusades in the Medieval Era, and the wars of aggression launched by Muslims intent on converting the world, were religious in nature. But the One Hundred Years War was not. Most warfare conducted by Europeans in Medieval and Early Modern Europe and in the development of colonial powers were not religious, but motivated instead by the quest for commercial and financial power.
Again, the Thirty Years’ War WAS religious. But its effects, shattering to Europe as they were, paled in comparison to the effects of the efforts of that prime megalomaniac, Napoleon, who lost half a million men in only one of his campaigns, against Russia. Religious motivation? Hardly.
Moving along, skipping over the patently non-religious American Civil War, Crimean War, Franco-Prussian War, Zulu Wars, Boer War etc. we come to the Russian-Japanese war. Not a religious motivation in sight. And then the First and Second World Wars, both underpinned by scientific theories of racial superiority and the bloodiest wars in history. The Chinese Civil War, won by Mao – again, not religious. The Viet Nam and Korean Wars, and all proxy wars of the Cold War – not religious. And the death caused by all the wars in the 20th century again do not compare to the deaths due to genocide by totalitarian governments, primarily the Nazi’s and Mao’s Communists: neither of which was a standard, superstitious religion according to your bigotted descriptions, Mr. Watcher.
Perhaps you need to pay more attention to facts and take of the blinders of your prejudice. Agape, or brotherly love, is a virtue developed by Christians, 2000 years ago, reflecting earlier Jewish values. Neither the Romans nor the Greeks possessed this concept of love. It certainly long predates the emergence of now sadly defunct classical liberalism, or its modern socialist perversion. Liberalism is an outgrowth of Christian society, not an independent invention.
Perhaps it is you who are afraid: of the truth!