US Government Climate Modellers Prove SINGAPORE is a Violent Uneducated Unproductive Wasteland

The Singapore Merlion at the Bay
The Singapore Merlion at the Bay. By Erwin Soo from Singapore, Singapore (The Singapore Merlion at the Bay) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Bloomberg has helpfully drawn together a series of dire predictions from the latest US government report about how climate is going to make us less educated, unproductive, violent, and too heat exhausted to work. My question – how do they explain Singapore?

Blame Global Warming for Your Bad Attitude

Climate change is making us angry. It may also cause more assaults, murders, and even poor math grades for your kids.

It doesn’t take a PhD to see that climate affects our lives. Anyone who lives far enough from the equator can tell just by opening the closet.

It takes a lot of scientists, however, to reveal how climate affects us—particularly as our climate changes. Sure, there’s prolonged heat and drought in some places, persistent floods and storms in others—all the ways we’ve learned to see global warming (though some still reject the science). But an exhaustive review of almost 200 different studies reveals not only the extent of those predictable changes but also how we humans are reacting to climatic wallops. The results are troubling.

Richard Moss, senior scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute, calls the study essential to making clear the everyday price of climate change. Moss, who led the climate division of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and contributes to the National Climate Assessment, said “it’s always been a challenge in some of our national conversations.”

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-08/climate-change-isn-t-just-making-us-hot-we-re-angrier-and-more-violent

If you think the Bloomberg article is unreadable, try the government website.

Thankfully there is a referenced study, which lets us see the gist of the argument;

For centuries, thinkers have considered whether and how climatic conditions—such as temperature, rainfall, and violent storms—influence the nature of societies and the performance of economies. A multidisciplinary renaissance of quantitative empirical research is illuminating important linkages in the coupled climate-human system. We highlight key methodological innovations and results describing effects of climate on health, economics, conflict, migration, and demographics. Because of persistent “adaptation gaps,” current climate conditions continue to play a substantial role in shaping modern society, and future climate changes will likely have additional impact. For example, we compute that temperature depresses current U.S. maize yields by ~48%, warming since 1980 elevated conflict risk in Africa by ~11%, and future warming may slow global economic growth rates by ~0.28 percentage points per year. In general, we estimate that the economic and social burden of current climates tends to be comparable in magnitude to the additional projected impact caused by future anthropogenic climate changes. Overall, findings from this literature point to climate as an important influence on the historical evolution of the global economy, they should inform how we respond to modern climatic conditions, and they can guide how we predict the consequences of future climate changes.

Read more: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6304/aad9837

So how do we know these predictions are nonsense, at least with regard to the USA? We know because the world is full of highly productive economies which experience climates far warmer than any imaginable global warming would inflict on the USA.

The predicted social impact of warmer temperatures is clearly the most ridiculous claim.

Blazing hot Singapore, the country I mentioned in the title, with an average GDP growth rate of 6.88% since 1976, is one of the most productive and safe countries in the world. Singapore’s education system is consistently at or near the top of international league tables. Violent crime rates in Singapore are amongst the lowest in the world. This real world example utterly contradicts US government claims that warmer climates cause increased violence, inability to study, and reduced productivity.

Hot weather in a region which is normally cold can cause suffering and health impacts. You have to drink a lot of water in truly hot weather – coffee and fizzy drinks will not adequately hydrate you. People who have rarely experienced real heat, who do not habitually drink water, sometimes don’t understand this, and suffer dehydration.

A sign sometimes seen in pub toilets of tropical Australia reads;

If your urine is clear, keep drinking.

If your urine is yellow, drink water.

If your urine is brown, you’re going to die

After a year or two of living in a warm climate, or repeated experience with hot weather, one way or another you learn the rules. Even if the world warms as predicted, most people will not experience the abrupt change in climate which people who migrate to the tropics experience. People who stay put will have decades to adapt, to learn appropriate warm weather adaptions. People who grow up in warm climates don’t suffer dehydration through stupidity, they learn to drink plenty of water as toddlers.

The alleged impact on agriculture is also ridiculous. Given that staple crops such as wheat are grown everywhere from the Canadian steppes to the arid inland of tropical Australia, I somehow suspect there is enough agricultural genetic diversity available to cope with any imaginable change in global temperature ranges.

Planting times also have a significant moderating effect on crop viability. On the edge of the tropics where I live, there is a very simple solution to growing temperate climate vegetables – you plant them in Autumn, or at the start of “winter”. Temperate vegetables can’t cope with the tropical Summer heat – but by the time that heat arrives, the winter planted veggies have long since been harvested.

Education – as I mentioned, warm Asian countries, including Singapore, regularly score at or near the top of education leagues. Suggesting that people can’t concentrate and learn in warm climates – the scientists who peddle such claims should be ashamed of spouting such obvious nonsense.

Violence – some tropical countries are extremely violent. Some freezing cold countries are also extremely violent. There are plenty of tropical and cold climate countries which are not violent. Surely this suggests to anyone not on the government payroll that violence is more of a cultural issue, than a climate issue?

In conclusion, claims that a slight increase in temperature, even several degrees rise in temperature, would have a dramatic impact on human health, behaviour and productivity in the USA are nonsense. The irrefutable proof that such claims are nonsense is simply that humans who live in the tropics, people who are acclimatised to the heat, have no problem working, prospering, learning and living in warm weather.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
195 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jimmy Haigh
September 9, 2016 7:45 pm

Singapore isn’t run by liberals. Anything they touch turns to crap in pretty short order.

George Tetley
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
September 10, 2016 6:20 am

Having lived in Singapore for 8 years, jimmy the only “crap ” in relation to Singapore is in your head ! More U.S $ millionaires live in Singapore than any other country ( per population )

Reply to  George Tetley
September 10, 2016 6:55 am

George re-read Jimmy’s comment written as such and see how you would respond:
Since everything Liberals touch turns to crap in pretty short order, Singapore is not run by Liberals.
I think you two are actually in agreement with each other.

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  George Tetley
September 10, 2016 7:08 am

That was the point!

Mike Smith
Reply to  George Tetley
September 10, 2016 7:12 am

So you just needed to tell us you’ve lived in Singapore for 8 years. Your reply to Jimmy Haigh wasn’t relevant to anything he said – unless you’re a liberal. In which case it’s probably best to keep quiet.

BallBounces
Reply to  George Tetley
September 10, 2016 7:21 am

they = liberals

TG
Reply to  George Tetley
September 10, 2016 2:45 pm

George Tetley – A little to quick reading Jimmy’s comment, May I suggest less caffeine and re-reading before hitting the send button.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
September 10, 2016 7:54 am

Too right you are!

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
September 10, 2016 8:00 am

I finally get it. Liberals want earth to revert back to the little ice age so they can keep population down and they and their elitist buddies can go skiing in CO and the Alps year round and smoke their weed till they drop. What a grand Liberal life.

expat
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
September 10, 2016 11:20 am

Singapore isn’t blazing hot, nor is a lot of the wet tropics. Damn humid though and combined with temps around 90F make AC a necessity. Most people accommodate easily. Now Dubai is blazingly hot in summer and humid and dusty. It’s also productive and crime free thanks to a totalitarian government that’s mostly beneficial and to mostly western business management. BTW there is almost no oil in the Emirate and they get by on trade.
The reason the US has a lot of crime in the summer is the demographic that commits most crime likes it hot and gets out and about.

Reply to  expat
September 11, 2016 8:42 am

“The UAE’s oil reserves are the seventh-largest in the world, while its natural gas reserves are the world’s seventeenth-largest.”
“Although UAE has the most diversified economy in the GCC, the UAE’s economy remains extremely reliant on oil. With the exception of Dubai, most of the UAE is dependent on oil revenues. Petroleum and natural gas continue to play a central role in the economy, especially in Abu Dhabi. More than 85% of the UAE’s economy was based on the oil exports in 2009.”

Mike the Morlock
September 9, 2016 8:03 pm

Eric Worrall I try not to be one of the first to respond.
But the this….
“For centuries, thinkers have considered whether and how climatic conditions—such as temperature, rainfall, and violent storms—influence the nature of societies and the performance of economies”
Salem Witch trials come to mind. Do they even have a reference to the term “climate in the context they are speaking. Did the concept even exist 1-3 centuries ago? I have never come across it.
michael

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
September 9, 2016 8:43 pm

So, did a more favorable climate result in the Industrial Revolution or did CO2 emissions from the Industrial Revolution result in a more favorable climate? Either way, we should be glad, although its possible that we might see the onset of another little ice age in the next decade or so based on recent solar activity and that which preceded the last mini ice age.

Gerry, England
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 10, 2016 3:57 am

Neither if you read Tim Ball’s article recently. The cold of the last solar minimum caused changes that resulted in the use of coal instead of wood and charcoal and the rest is history as they say.

Bryan A
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 10, 2016 10:42 am

It could go far beyond the next Little Ice Age as we are also poised at the precipice of the next great Ice Age Cycle

Bryan A
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 10, 2016 10:45 am

http://alanbetts.com/image/1/1200/0/uploads/vostok3curves-1276876924.jpg
We are at the verge of the next great glaciation event

Gabro
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 10, 2016 5:03 pm

The Industrial Revolution can be seen as a response to the Little Ice Age.
The British burned down all their forests, while also building the Royal Navy, so had to step up coal mining. This led to better steam-powered pumps, which led to a need for more coal, as did the need for more steel for railroads.
So bad times can also lead to societal advancement, but generally humanity flourishes under warmer conditions.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 10, 2016 11:56 pm

CO2 change of climate (cooling) would be a cause for migration of Vikings and Mongols southward while warmer climate may have led to overpopulation which was a driving influence for migration into the South Pacific and going back a long way for migration out of Africa. However, I do not believe that climate had any influence on the Industrial Revolution. I suggest that driver was private enterprise and competition. It was trading and competition (military, civil and cultural) that led to the Greek golden age. Trading led to the start of the Roman empire. Trading, innovation and competition between the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch and British was a major driver of the Industrial Revolution, The Germans got into industrialisation in the mid nineteenth century starting particularly in free cities such as Hanover. USA took the lead in new enterprise at the end of the nineteenth century. Socialism, government regulation and high taxing kills enterprise. The fall of USSR and Eastern European countries should be an example of the road to failure. That is the problem with the EU now (laws and regulation about energy use are a major factor for the lack of growth and the decline of innovation in Europe). USA is going down that road with past governments of both Democrats and Republicans. Japan had great growth until corruption in Government and bureaucracy pulled the plug. China had a huge surge in progress when the let go of the reins to give private enterprise a chance. Right now the communist regime wants to clamp down and get back in control. Their signing of the climate agreement is all about an excuse of political control and nothing to do with private enterprise and free competition.

Santa Baby
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
September 9, 2016 11:26 pm

Look at the doomsdayers solutions and it’s pretty clear to me what the real issue is. It’s about the “Domination of nature” idea and how to use that to attack the Western World cultural and economic values. It’s all about Marxism. But the real problem and question is how is Marxism and it’s solutions going to better help us to adapt?

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Santa Baby
September 10, 2016 9:21 am

Santa – exactly.
How will Marxism help us adapt? IDK – maybe we could look at the nations where Marxism has been implemented and see how well it works….

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Santa Baby
September 10, 2016 3:58 pm

More like a attempt to grow governments and diminish the rights of normal people.
This is very smart, because it may be possible to realise the aims of Napoleon and Hitler – not by force of arms but by giving more power to governments, propaganda, lies and “education”
This site describes it better than I can.
http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemieofchristchurch.com

Reply to  Santa Baby
September 11, 2016 6:41 pm

Santa Baby, they don’t care if we adapt or not. They are not after helping in any issue in any way. It’s purely about power and the destruction of a system they don’t understand. If they understood it, they’d realize it’s the very thing they are hankering after. It’s a system that allows each individual to be as “equal” as they want or to soar and to advance themselves according to the effort put in.
These people can only think to advance themselves by kicking down everyone and everything around them. They see their advancement only after the destruction of others. They can’t compete otherwise, so they must destroy to get ahead. Rather pathetic if you think about it. A sad bunch. I’m glad I’m not one of them.

Questing Vole
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
September 10, 2016 3:13 pm

The Salem witch trials come to my mind too, along with Tulipmania and even the South Sea Bubble. One does not expect to witness collective hysteria on that scale in the 21st Century, but belief in CAGW looks a lot like an international outbreak of what we’re very localised events 3 and 4 centuries ago.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Questing Vole
September 11, 2016 8:23 am

“One does not expect to witness collective hysteria on that scale in the 21st Century”
All you need to do is look at any religion. Collective hysteria is alive and well.

Felix
September 9, 2016 8:07 pm

Singapore Government Report of Climate Change Impacts:
Singapore is not insulated from the impact of climate change. From 1972 to 2014, the annual mean temperature has increased from 26.6°C to 27.7°C. The mean sea level in the Straits of Singapore has also increased at the rate of 1.2mm to 1.7mm per year in the period 1975 to 2009.
Rainfall has become more intense in recent years. According to Singapore’s Second National Climate Change Study, there has been a general uptrend in annual average rainfall from 2192mm in 1980 to 2727mm in 2014.
In 2001, the first recorded cyclone near the equator, Typhoon Vamei, swept north of Singapore and caused major flooding in the region. It is uncertain whether such tropical cyclones near the equator will occur more frequently in the future.
https://www.nccs.gov.sg/climate-change-and-singapore/national-circumstances/impact-climate-change-singapore

DHR
Reply to  Felix
September 9, 2016 8:25 pm

And all that time, Singapore kept getting richer and richer. A consequence of climate change perhaps?

Reply to  DHR
September 10, 2016 8:20 am

Or a cause, perhaps???!!!

Reply to  Felix
September 9, 2016 10:24 pm

In 1972, air conditioning would have been the exception in highly urbanised Singapore. Now it’s ubiquitous. All that waste heat goes into the air near ground level. I’d expect air temperatures to have risen more from this effect. The increase in near ground heat and humidity from air conditioning will result in increased convective instability, the main cause of rainfall there.
And Singapore is 20% percent larger than it was in 1972, so I’m not surprise they omit any mention of sea level rises and the fact ocean cooling effects will be reduced.

Doug in Calgary
Reply to  Philip Bradley
September 10, 2016 12:43 pm

@Phiip Bradley
Not to mention the replacement of jungle villages (kampongs) with extensive high rise apartment developments. In the ’70’s I always used to enjoy visiting my friends that lived in the kampongs because it felt cooler there, now there is only one left for the tourists to visit.
The island of Singapore is smaller in area than the city of Calgary and has over 6 million residents versus our 1.2 million. Much to the disgust of its citizens the government is projecting a population of between 10 and 11 million in a few years, much of that due to the importation of cheaper foreign workers. If there’s going to be violence there it will be due to overcrowding and an over dominant government that Singaporeans feel is not giving them a fair break.

pbweather
Reply to  Felix
September 10, 2016 12:16 am

Having lived in Singapore for the last 4 years it is as the author says a very safe, virtually crime free, highly educated country. However their climate change statement is not supported by their own weather stats from their national met service at the NEA.
http://www.nea.gov.sg/weather-climate/climate/weather-statistics
Check out the table and years of extremes.
I did download rainfall and temp data and they follow a world wide trend of increasing rainfall and temperature during the late 80s and 90s then flat line in the 2000s. The pause exists here to.

Reply to  Felix
September 10, 2016 7:12 am

I notice everything on that page uses 1972/1980 as a starting point so not very informative really -excluding the 1954 floods for example. Reliable records before then would be interesting.
I remember the Dec 78 flood well. Made quite an impression on me. Those drains were lethal:
“Two major floods were recorded in1978. The first flood occurred on 10 and 11 November after thunderstorms with wind speeds of up to 23 knots were recorded. As a result, trees fell, houses flooded and two people were killed. About 75 mm of rainwater was recorded at the Paya Lebar meteorological station. The resulting floods also caused traffic jams and disrupted bus services.21
A few weeks later, on 2 and 3 December, premature torrential monsoon rains caused severe floods. About 512 mm of rain fell over a 24 hour period, wreaking “utter chaos throughout Singapore”.22 The amount of rainfall during that period was described as “exceptional” as it accounted for almost a quarter of Singapore’s annual average rainfall.23
More than 1,000 people had to be evacuated from their flooded homes.24 Farmers reported damage to property and losses of livestock and poultry.25 The electricity supply and telephone service in many areas were disrupted as a result of the rain and floods.26 There were also reported incidents of landslides, with some occurring in housing estates.27 The Straits Times reported seven deaths from the floods; the youngest was a 10-year-old primary school boy who had fallen into a flooded drain.28 The Chinese newspaper, Nanyang Siang Pau, reported at least eight people dead or missing.29

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_780_2004-12-30.html

BFL
September 9, 2016 8:08 pm

Well there is this:

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  BFL
September 9, 2016 9:41 pm


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082089/
Body Heat (1981)
In the midst of a searing Florida heat wave, a woman convinces her lover, a small-town lawyer, to murder her rich husband.
Directed by Lawrence Kasdan and staring William Hurt, Kathleen Turner, Richard Crenna, Ted Danson, Mickey Rourke.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082089/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Ned: You can stand here with me if you want but you’ll have to agree not to talk about the heat.
Matty: I’m a married woman.
Ned: Meaning what?
Matty: Meaning I’m not looking for company.
Ned: Then you should have said I’m a happily married woman.
* * *
Matty: You aren’t too smart, are you? I like that in a man.
Ned: What else do you like? Lazy? Ugly? Horny? I got ’em all.
Matty: You don’t look lazy.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  BFL
September 10, 2016 9:35 am

Date of that movie? Probably around 1960.
Now I am always outside in 92F weather and I can say without a f@#^%g doubt that it f@#^%g doesn’t make me f@#^&g angry or want to hurt those f@#^%g northerners who come down here and always complain about the f@#^%g heat. F@#k them and the f@#%g horse they rode in on. Now where did I put my Gatorade.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 10, 2016 11:40 am

My horse drank it
michael

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 10, 2016 2:47 pm

Gatorade is always cheaper after it’s gone through the horse.
Or was that oats?
Mike in Houston, where 92° is long sleeve shirt weather.

September 9, 2016 8:12 pm

Of course climate change is bad. That is an article of faith, and disputing that with an adherent is like arguing with members of some religious groups or Communists or vegans (sorry for being a bit redundant there). If you accept their premises, you nearly have to accept their faith. Facts just don’t count.

John MacDonald
September 9, 2016 8:14 pm

Food grows where water flows.
Lots of those signs along CA Central Valley freeways. A truism that even Jerry Brown and his water-robbing cohorts haven’t been able to disprove.

SMC
September 9, 2016 8:19 pm

It’s my understanding that the most prosperous times for human social evolution occurred during periods of warmth. The most detrimental times to human social evolution have occurred during periods of cold. An oversimplification…sure. Nonetheless, it seems to me, the greatest leaps forward in science, government, arts, medicine, education, etc., have occurred during times of plenty… which also seem to correspond to times of warmth. So, does the Earth’s climate have an effect…you bet. It’s just not the effect the Watermelons would have you believe.

Reply to  SMC
September 10, 2016 5:35 am

Your understanding was correct, …… and most everyone else has the same “understanding” regardless of whether or not they publicly admit to said because the literal facts are, …. the most prosperous times for human social evolution occurred during periods of warmth ….. and those Periods are specifically named, to wit:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/images/Figure4.jpg

Reply to  SMC
September 10, 2016 7:04 am

Excellent use of descriptor “Watermelons”. I may have to borrow that one.

September 9, 2016 8:24 pm

Anyone who lives far enough from the equator can tell just by opening the closet.
Well I just opened the closet. Nada. I’m north of the 49th, is that not far enough from the equator? Assuming it is far enough, can someone tell me what it is I am supposed to see?

Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 9, 2016 8:24 pm

Narnia?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 10, 2016 5:12 am

No, silly. Climate boogeymen.

SMC
Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 9, 2016 8:26 pm

Mordor?

Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 9, 2016 8:48 pm

D*mn! I pulled out all the boxes just to check behind them. No Narnia, no Mordor, but I did find a skeleton. Do you suppose that is the first climate refugee that everyone has been looking for?

Hivemind
Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 9, 2016 10:02 pm

You’re supposed to see clothes. I live in Canberra and I’m still wearing my cold weather clothes. Global warming can’t come soon enough for me.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Hivemind
September 10, 2016 3:13 am

victoria next few nights fcast the 3 to 5c range
lotta woolens NOT being put away this spring;-)

Flyoverbob
Reply to  Hivemind
September 10, 2016 7:05 am

You folks really need to pay attention. Since you are cooler than you would like to be that is just a weather event. If you were warmer than you were comfortable with, that would be Global Warming.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Hivemind
September 10, 2016 10:18 am

Flyoverbob has the gist of it. If the temperature doesn’t fit the narrative, “you can’t conflate weather with climate.” If, however, the temperature cooperates it is unequivocal (search for the hidden word. e.g.”likely”) scientific proof of Global warming and weather can’t possibly have anything to do with it.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Hivemind
September 10, 2016 12:00 pm

It depends on whether or not you speak “English”. When I go to the closet I see the marvelous invention of Mr. Crapper, which means I do not have to “go” out in the cold. To see clothing I look in my wardrobe. Woolens live in my tallboy, which should perhaps be reinstated for use on these “climate” catastrophists (just kidding).

Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 9, 2016 10:33 pm

If you live in a warm to hot climate, your wardrobe tends to be limited to shorts and tshirts, at least for men. While those live in cold climates have a quite different wardrobe.

Santa Baby
Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 9, 2016 11:31 pm

Pink elephants and if you don’t keep on drinking.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 10, 2016 5:36 am

While in the service I was stationed in Hawaii. It utterly amazed me that the “natives” wore the exact same coat that we wore on the coldest days of the winter in northern NY. By the time I left HI I too was wearing my heavy coat in the wintertime.

peter
September 9, 2016 8:29 pm

Singapore is a beautiful city. I stayed 7 days at the most magnificent hotel anywhere in the world. The Marina Bay Sands.. Stunning, Three towers placed on a gentle curve with a graceful top that straddles all three like a long slender cruise ship placed on three towers. An infinity pool spreads end to end like a beach in the air… Multiple resturants like on a beach at the top, fireworks and light shows ovwr the cleanest most modern city anywhere. Simply stunning. google it.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  peter
September 9, 2016 9:50 pm

Good Singapore movie:
Saint Jack (1979)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079843/
Directed by Peter Bogdanovich, staring Ben Gazzara, Denholm Elliott, James Villiers
Based on a novel by Paul Theroux. Saint Jack was shot entirely on location in various places in Singapore in May and June 1978. As of 2006, it is the only Hollywood film to have been shot on location in Singapore.

CNC
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 9, 2016 10:27 pm

I have seen it, not bad. It is the old Singapore but some of what was shown in the movie is still there but not the slums or pollution, that is long gone. No more gangster either, but the rest is still here.
Peter Bogdanovich has never returned to Singapore by the way.

Reply to  peter
September 10, 2016 1:28 pm

peter
Singapore is magic, for sure.
I lived there for three years in the Nineties. Let the kids – about 8 – 11 [older now, of course] – travel to the other side of the island by MRT [= Tube, Subway, Metro], on their own, before we left.
Hot – ye-ees – 79-88 F most of the time. Much warmer than Croydon!
If the forecast was below 75F [24C] – a cold weather warning was issued; and fashionable folk wore furs up Orchard Road.
Humid – certainly. And it could rain.
But, sometimes, localised.
I remember one occasion, when I was driving, from Lower Delta Road, west along the Ayer Rajah Expressway; my carriageway was dry, and sunny.
The other carriageway was dark – black as sin – and raining heavily.
The dividing line ran exactly along the central reservation [‘median’ for others, I believe], which may have been 10-18 feet [3-5 metres] wide. For a kilometre or so.
Localised, see.
Auto

September 9, 2016 10:10 pm

I’ll fix the first line of the quote: “Imaginary Climate change is making us angry … ”
I second Peter’s comment about Singapore. And it’s a whole different concept of industrious. Back in the late 80s I bought memory chips, maths co-processors etc in Singapore by weight, in a paper bag, half a scoop extra in case any ran “hot” when plugged in.
I think Angry Bird warmists would be well advised to avoid the place. Being a PITA, dropping rubbish, spitting on the ground, stuff like that does not go down well.

Reply to  Martin Clark
September 10, 2016 5:49 am

Well now I think that all lefty liberal PITAs and Angry Bird warmists should be forced to spend a month in Singapore, simply because they need their “attitude” adjusted. If they won’t listen, then they will have to feel, to wit:

Caning is a widely used form of legal corporal punishment in Singapore.

Hasbeen
September 9, 2016 10:12 pm

In 1974 I sailed from a Sydney winter to Rabaul Papua New Guinea, just 250 miles from the equator, & the land of perpetual fairly warm summer.
No air conditioning up there then, even the big supermarket only had fans.
It was the near perfect life style. The best 3 years of my life.
Pity they can’t fix the volcanoes when they fix the weather.

CNC
September 9, 2016 10:23 pm

I live in Singapore and have 4 young children attending the local school here. I would like to point out the schools are not air conditioned, only fans. With this the schools here are normally ranked in the tops three world wide year after year. The math(s) my 4 grader gets I did not see till I was in high school in the USA.

gringojay
September 9, 2016 10:34 pm

Singapore was where Ugandan President Milton Obote was when Idi Amin took over Uganda in a coup. In the early weeks of the coup inside the Kampala (Ugandan capitol) military compound the political prisioners were packed into 2 adjoining baracks rooms. One of those rooms was called “Singapore” — because if you were put in there you were not going home again. I don’t think the temperature had anything to do with it.

Jack
September 9, 2016 10:39 pm

Here is the corn/maize yield in USA actual yield 1866 to 2010.
.http://mjperry.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/corn-yields-have-increased-6x-since.html
Make of that computation what you will
In the Bible, corn is nothing but wheat and barley. In USA and Canada corn and maize are one and the same, and is meant for the plant that produces kernels used for cooking. However, the term corn is preferred over maize for food products that are made from it, such as corn flour, corn starch, cornmeal etc.
Just been to SIngapore recently. There is no violence. There is no litter. They have a very high standard of education. Tourist flock there because it is so peaceful.

CraigAustin
Reply to  Jack
September 10, 2016 6:14 am

Oddly they have the only non third world economy that is on the equator. It looks like in general, smart economies like seasons.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  CraigAustin
September 10, 2016 2:19 pm

I am in Singapore from time to time to visit a couple of my grandchildren. I am OK with heat but running in and out of air conditioned malls makes the outdoor heat much worse. It is, however, far better than Jakarta which is unbearably hot and humid. Literally is it like living in a sauna. The UHI effect is palpable as there are millions of people in and around Jakarta.
I don’t recall the economy of Jakarta suffering as much as I do from the heat. It is boom town. Similarly Penang, Kuala Lumpur, Chennai…
The study’s claims are bunk, start to finish.

September 9, 2016 10:52 pm

It takes a lot of scientists, however, to reveal how climate affects us
It took one scientist, Galileo, to show that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa. (OK maybe two, Copernicus included)
It took one scientist, to understand gravity and invent differential calculus.
It took just Mendel to identify genes.
(And just Watson, Crick and Frankin to discover its double helix structure)
Only Darwin (OK plus Wallace) for natural selection-evolution
Only Einstein for special and general relativity.
“A lot of climate scientists” don’t do any science at all, they just fill the pews of the cathedral of climate doom singing hymns from a hymn sheet of irrational belief in impending climate judgement and baying for the blood of unbelievers.

Reply to  ptolemy2
September 10, 2016 6:17 am

Right, they don’t do any science at all.
Ya gotta keep in mind that 97% of all Climate Scientists(sic) are dependent upon their respective government and its Programs ….. for providing all their monetary needs.
And just like all government Program, when they don’t accomplish their intended purpose their funding is increased year after year and more employees are hired each and every year.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  ptolemy2
September 10, 2016 9:29 am

Good points regarding science.
However, regarding the theory of natural selection-evolution – this is quite a different matter than the others – observation is a hallmark of science, and we have never observed a new species come into being; until we do, the theory that natural selection, working on genetic change, and somehow adding information, accounts for the wide variety of life forms on the planet is still a theory awaiting scientific proof.

MfK
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 10, 2016 12:21 pm

We’ve observed at least two: the goatsbeard wildflower has produced an entirely new morphology, which cannot mate with its ancestors, and the Hawthorn fly, which has produced an offshoot that feeds only on apples (not thorns, as in the original), and which cannot mate with its ancestors. There are some birds here and there, as well, but none are the slam dunks the goatsbeard and Hawthorn fly proved to be.

Pat Frank
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 10, 2016 1:20 pm

Chihuahuas and St. Bernards would be considered different species if they lived in the wild.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 10, 2016 2:32 pm

It only takes one clear example of such evolution of a species to prove the concept. Two are provided. It doesn’t prove that man is descended from apes, but it proves the theory of evolution by adaptation.
Those fighting the evolutionary theory will have to adapt too: reducing the range of their objections. There are multiple artifacts of what are presumably human civilisations that greatly predate the current thinking about modern man’s appearance on the scene.
It is very much like the ‘age of the earth’ question. Each generation found it impossible to imagine the earth could be ‘that old’. Similarly it is beyond the pale to imagine that humans build the cement block walls intersecting 130m year old coal seams or made and dropped the iron tools encased in them. These and other artifacts contradict the meme that humans descended from apes a few million years ago. It is just the evolutionary catechism, no more aligned to the evidence than the CAGW tin foil hat brigade is, hiding from a Watt of cell phone ‘radiation’ and imaginary hurricanes.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 10, 2016 6:54 pm

I don’t have a “reply” otion for Mfk, but I will look into goatsbeard wildflower and Hawthorn fly – genetic drift, where the split-off line can no longer inter-breed should be a new species if the differences are due to new information rather than a narrowing of information, as you get when you breed a chihuahua or a St. Bernard from a generic dog.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 11, 2016 6:29 am

So sayith: TheLastDemocrat

…… until we do, the theory that natural selection, working on genetic change, and somehow adding information, accounts for the wide variety of life forms on the planet is still a theory awaiting scientific proof.

TLD, there is “natural selection” that causes LONG-TERM genetic changes in the offspring ….. and then there is, per se, “unnatural selection” that causes RAPID genetic changes in the animal or plant itself and consequently in their respective offspring.
Natural selection is defined as the Vertical Gene Transfer of genetic info, as when a parent cell divides into two daughter cells (sexual or asexual reproduction).
And my above, per se, “unnatural selection” is defined as the Horizontal Gene Transfer of genetic info, whereby the organism can acquire “new” genetic info DIRECTLY from another organism.
And TLD, you are probably not familiar with the term “Horizontal Gene Transfer” ….. but you probably are familiar with the term “Gene Therapy” which bio-labs and medical providers are employing quite frequently now days. And you can read more about HGT in this article, to wit:
Sorry, Darwin, It’s Not Your Evolution Any More
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/horizontal_gene098531.html
And TLD, in response to your above stated phrase of “the wide variety of life forms“, it is my learned opinion that it was Horizontal Gene Transfer that was directly responsible for the Cambrian Explosion that occurred 545 million years ago. Read more @ http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/cambrian.php

Santa Baby
Reply to  ptolemy2
September 12, 2016 8:12 pm

It’s called policy based climate “science”?

stuartlarge
September 9, 2016 10:58 pm

I worked in Singapore for 6 months and I loved it there, some of the expats I was with preferred Hong Kong, they found Singapore to tame and civilised.
I now live in Philippines which can also be nice (not Manila) I have found the level of violence is more related to poverty.

Gamecock
Reply to  stuartlarge
September 10, 2016 4:11 am

‘the level of violence is more related to poverty.’
Nonsense. There’s nothing about poverty that requires violence.

SMC
Reply to  Gamecock
September 10, 2016 2:09 pm

@Gamecock
Maybe not, but there is a correlation between poverty and violence

Chris
Reply to  Gamecock
September 11, 2016 12:18 am

“Nonsense. There’s nothing about poverty that requires violence.”
Nothing except for a lack of food.

Gamecock
Reply to  Gamecock
September 11, 2016 4:33 pm

Correlation is not causation.

Gamecock
Reply to  Gamecock
September 12, 2016 4:45 pm

‘Nothing except for a lack of food.’ – Chris
You are telling us about yourself, that a lack of food would lead YOU to violence, and projecting it on other people.

Jer0me
September 9, 2016 11:07 pm

I must admit, I livevin the tropics, and I am unproductive, and find it difficult to study. I was that way when I lived in the uk too, and that is why I moved to the tropics (it being so much more pleasant to be lazy here) , so the causation is the other way around in my case 😁
The most violent things around here are dingoes, roos & cows. The few people are pretty laid back.

Reply to  Jer0me
September 10, 2016 12:48 am

I have lived in the tropics and subtropics since 1970.
The warmth is wonderful, and apart from the ENSO cycle, I haven’t noticed any climate change not any sea level change either.

Jer0me
September 9, 2016 11:19 pm

Abd what, pray tell, is a “climatic wallop”? I would be more likely to get a climactic wallop, I suspect.

gnomish
Reply to  Jer0me
September 10, 2016 5:57 am
Andrew
September 10, 2016 12:07 am

I guess Russia and Detroit are the safest places on earth then?

Hugs
Reply to  Andrew
September 10, 2016 12:55 am

I’d like to point out that telling how hot countries are more violent than cold countries, is a kind of prejudice which appears to be a politically correct way of complaining on violence in places like Iraq, Nigeria, Rwanda, or Brazil. It would be bad to tell the problem is internal to the people (racism), or related to the culture (nowadays also called racism), or related to education and economy (dubious, because this could be their own fault to some extent).
Instead, a PC way requires to find reasons such that the reason is in the Western countries. You might add the CO2 emissions from the U.S. or U.S. and Western Europe together are only a part of the total CO2 emissions, but the point is to find a moral reason, not a real reason. So we are supposed to be morally responsible of slaughter in Rwanda because, theoretically, our CO2 emissions have made it worse for people in Rwanda.
Certain kind of criminality of course increases with warm days. 15C and 25C has a big difference there, but that would not be a reason to move from Death Valley to South Pole. Nothing wrong with South Pole, I’d just like to say why people kill or stab is not temperature, even when you can find correlations and explanatory mechanisms at daily basis (more crimes when people are out).
If high temperature made people mad, Aboriginals would be killers and Inuits the most peaceful people, right? Somehow I think there’s not so much a difference related to climate.

Robert from oz
Reply to  Hugs
September 10, 2016 6:11 am

Vikings would be a good case in point .

Ian W
September 10, 2016 1:02 am

If these academics with a political axe to grind, think that a few hundredths of a degree rise in global average temperatures will cause societal unrest, then they should also consider what cooling would do. After all they are studying ‘Climate Change’ not ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ so they should consider the impact of cooling back to their halcyon days of 1750 perhaps when the Earth was at their ideal global temperatures. Surely that is where they wish temperatures to be?

Marcus
Reply to  Ian W
September 10, 2016 2:50 am

…These “academics” probably also believe that a Full Moon causes crazy people to act ..ummm, errrr…crazy !

Flyoverbob
Reply to  Ian W
September 10, 2016 7:34 am

“After all they are studying ‘Climate Change’ not ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ . . .” All the evidence seems to the contrary.

Grimwig
September 10, 2016 1:11 am

World annual energy consumption has risen from around 100 ExaJoules in 1950 to a current figure of around 550. Not a lot if spread evenly over the surface but concentrated in major urban areas could have some effect?

Flyoverbob
Reply to  Grimwig
September 10, 2016 7:42 am

It would be far more helpful if you included an explanation of how your post relates to the topic at hand.

John M. Ware
September 10, 2016 1:34 am

Another factor not yet mentioned is mobility. Humans can make choices of where they live and where they go for vacations. In a great many cases, that choice takes them to warmer climes, which is why population growth is slower in Minnesota than in Florida. My own choice, if I must move, would be to go north because I prefer cooler climates in summertime; however, now that I am 74 and have a heart condition, I can’t endure the cold as I once did, so I am happy to stay here in Virginia and wait out the summer (during which I still usually manage to tend my gardens to some extent). Winters here can get cold, even occasionally snowy, so I am careful when I have to shovel snow or otherwise be active when the air is quite cold. Thus, I find Virginia’s hot summers to be uncomfortable, so I use air conditioning; and I am glad our winters are no colder, though I welcome the respite from the summer heat. If “global warming” makes Virginia too hot, I can still go to Maine or Indiana or Wisconsin; they aren’t full yet. So far I am safe; temps here have not changed to a detectable extent since I moved to VA in 1981. (By “detectable” I mean perceived by me in living my life, both indoors and out; I’m sure fine-tuning and analyzing temperature records at RIC airport might yield an infinitesimal bit of warming or cooling, but I surely can’t tell.)
Not all animals have quite our mobility, but many birds certainly migrate, thus maintaining a needed level of warmth for their lives. Not many birds that spend summer in, say, Florida, go north to Manitoba for the winter.

Oldseadog
Reply to  John M. Ware
September 10, 2016 1:55 am

John,
The birds migrate ‘cos they can fly quite quickly.
Animals tend to hibernate instead.
Either way they want to get away from the cold and the lack of food which that causes.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Oldseadog
September 11, 2016 2:19 pm

Birds aren’t animals? Who knew?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  John M. Ware
September 10, 2016 9:59 pm

spend summer in, say, Florida, go north to Manitoba for the winter.
– Not the other way around.
How ridiculous one can get.

Peta in Cumbria
September 10, 2016 2:34 am

In a way they’re right but as per usual they’ve got it all back-to-front.
We are all getting lazy, stupid, cant-be-bothered buck passing zombies (that bit’s correct) but it’s because of our carbohydrate laden diet.
Also maybe climate is changing because of the growing/farming of all that nutrient-free, brain-rotting and tasteless mush. The farmers are drying out the dirt and via ploughs, cultivators and ammonium nitrate, releasing the extra CO2 we witness.
Again its gotten all back-to-front, the CO2 is not changing the climate, CO2 is changing because climate (water and organic material in the dirt) is changing (reducing)
And that’s before the double bonds in those unsaturated veg oils snap open in all the wrong places, switch off our cells’ apoptosis mechanism and hence trigger cancers.
As we age, shed loads of useless vegetable protein fragments clutter up our brain neurons and drive us completely nuts.

Marcus
September 10, 2016 2:42 am

…Violence is directly related to poverty….Poverty is directly related to liberal governance…Therefore, Liberals create poverty and violence…

Reply to  Marcus
September 10, 2016 2:07 pm

And CO2 – all those bodies decomposing . . . .
Auto
Practicing to be a logician.

George Lawson
September 10, 2016 2:53 am

“we compute that temperature since 1980 elevated conflict risk in Africa by ~11%, ”
How in God’s name do they come up with this one? Do they really believe that they can persuade anyone other than the idiots who have been persuaded to give money for such ludicrous research, that their findings can be in any way believable?

Marcus
Reply to  George Lawson
September 10, 2016 3:05 am

…This insanity will only end with President Trump !

Gamecock
Reply to  George Lawson
September 10, 2016 4:14 am

At least they didn’t use a decimal point.

Reply to  George Lawson
September 10, 2016 5:52 am

They should also ask any farmer if/when he thinks average corn yield will be about 240 bushels per acre?

benofhouston
Reply to  usurbrain
September 10, 2016 2:29 pm

That would be at least calculable via raw extrapolation. Not accurate, but calculable.
As far as calculating elevated war due to increased temperature of the climate based on criminal trends with weather? That’s equating apples to orangutans on one axis and peanuts and pinecones on the other, using enough calculated constants to fit an elephant.
I’m out of folkloric anecdotes to describe how not even wrong this is!

Chris
September 10, 2016 3:59 am

“The predicted social impact of warmer temperatures is clearly the most ridiculous claim.
Blazing hot Singapore, the country I mentioned in the title, with an average GDP growth rate of 6.88% since 1976, is one of the most productive and safe countries in the world…… This real world example utterly contradicts US government claims that warmer climates cause increased violence, inability to study, and reduced productivity.”
First, Singapore is not blazing hot. Peak temperatures year round are 32-33C (89-91F), and on rare occasions 34 (93). Hot, yes, but not 100+ F blazing hot. Plus there is cloud cover on most days – I know this because I have lived in Singapore for 20 years.
More importantly, as it relates to productivity, Singapore is referred to as the air conditioned nation for good reason. A large percentage of the economy is in the services sector, which is air conditioned, as is much of the manufacturing sector- pharmaceutical, electronics mfg and aviation services. There is no agricultural sector to speak of, unlike the rest of SE Asia.
Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father, called air conditioning the greatest invention of the 20th century as it allowed office workers in Singapore to be more productive during the day- which in itself refutes the point that temperatures don’t matter as it relates to productivity.
“The irrefutable proof that such claims are nonsense is simply that humans who live in the tropics, people who are acclimatised to the heat, have no problem working, prospering, learning and living in warm weather.”
The tropics are not known for being highly productive regions, anyone who has lived there will know that. Historically, productivity has been far greater in cooler Europe and North American than in tropical countries So yes, temperature does matter as it relates to productivity. Research papers have well established the link between higher temperatures and productivity: http://www.microbecolhealthdis.net/index.php/gha/article/viewArticle/2047

rd50
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 8:15 am

Excellent article presenting known and well established findings that worker productivity decreases (natural adaptation) with increase in temperature and humidity in order to prevent heat stress. Yes, remove air conditioning from Singapore and see what will happen. I agree with the Singapore founding father, bring air conditioning!

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
September 10, 2016 4:06 am

Eric, you have picked out Singapore to debunk the hypothesis – well done, case proven. But, on the other hand, it isn’t hard to read racist implications in the bullshite put forward by the Obama Govt climate modelers? You know, who lives where, what their GDP and so on is? Basically, Africa, etc. Funny who the real racists are.

Chris
Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
September 10, 2016 4:45 am

Singapore does not debunk the hypothesis – they use air conditioning to create a comfortable environment for their workers, the vast majority of which work indoors.

rd50
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 8:16 am

Agree!

Rhoda u
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 8:17 am

The success came before the AC. As you know very well. A Chinese population unfettered by tyranny in a good trading location are the factors, temperature has little to do with it.

yarpos
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 12:35 pm

Success came with freedom from Malaysia and long before widespread use of aircon. Much of the tropical world could be something like Singapore if they had the will and the intelligence

Chris
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 12:52 pm

“The success came before the AC. As you know very well.”
I think I’ll listen to Lee Kuan Yew instead of you. Here are his words: When asked to name the most important invention of the 20th century, Singapore’s first prime minister and elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew, singled out the air-conditioner.
Lim Swee Say, Singapore’s environment minister, told air-conditioning executives last year: ”Air-conditioning plays a crucial role in our economy. Without it, many of our rank-and-file workers would probably be sitting under coconut trees to escape from the heat and humidity, instead of working in high-tech factories.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/02/business/the-business-world-singapore-cools-off-and-all-must-pitch-in.html?pagewanted=all
It is completely unsubstantiated to state that temperature does not affect productivity. Studies conclusively show that both physical and mental productivity are at their best at temperatures in the low to mid 20s C.

CNC
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 7:56 pm

Chris,
You are right that the low to mid 20s C is the most productive. This is why in the colder climates offices, factories and homes have central heating. I do not see how this differs from using air-conditioning. Humans adjust their environment to suit their needs and desires.
I live in Singapore and it success has a lot more to do with the rule of law, lack of corruption and the governments laissez-faire attitude towards business. Lee Kuan Yew points out this and much more in his books. Also I should point out Singapore was a great successes before air-conditioning but it does allow for Singapore to be a financial hub today like heating does for London.
As I posted above my children attend local school here and there is no air-conditioning in the class rooms in grade of high school (primary and secondary). With this Singapore schools are rated among the top in the world year after year. I think Eric has debunked the hypothesis quite well.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 11:38 pm

“The success came before the AC. As you know very well. A Chinese population unfettered by tyranny in a good trading location are the factors, temperature has little to do with it.”
Singapore’s greatest economic success has come in the last 40 years, not the century prior to that. Once again, I will go with the opinion of Singapore’s founders about the importance of air conditioning to their economic success, rather than your opinion.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
September 11, 2016 12:33 am

CNC said: “You are right that the low to mid 20s C is the most productive. This is why in the colder climates offices, factories and homes have central heating. I do not see how this differs from using air-conditioning. Humans adjust their environment to suit their needs and desires.”
It differs because the premise of the article is that increasing temperatures do not affect productivity in tropical regions. From the article ” Bloomberg has helpfully drawn together a series of dire predictions from the latest US government report about how climate is going to make us less educated, unproductive, violent, and too heat exhausted to work. My question – how do they explain Singapore?”
Singapore does not have agriculture, nor textiles, nor the many other industries that cannot use air conditioning due to cost constraints. So therefore, implying that Singapore proves that high temperatures do not adversely impact productivity is a false analogy.
You say “Also I should point out Singapore was a great successes before air-conditioning but it does allow for Singapore to be a financial hub today like heating does for London.”
Actually, that is not true, air conditioning has been in widespread use in Singapore since the 1950s: http://www.carrier.com.sg/about/inside.aspx
As far as schools, yes, the public schools do not often have AC. Most of the private ones do.

commieBob
September 10, 2016 4:20 am

In India in 2015 there was a heat wave with temperatures up to 48° C. 2500 people died. link
In France in 2003 a heat wave exceeded 40° C killed 14802 people. link
I lead it to others to draw conclusions.

Reply to  commieBob
September 10, 2016 5:29 am

Conclusion: heat waves happen

commieBob
Reply to  chaamjamal
September 10, 2016 6:54 am

I was hoping you would explain why so many more French people died in a cooler and much less populous country.

SMC
Reply to  chaamjamal
September 10, 2016 7:16 am

Acclimation?

yarpos
Reply to  chaamjamal
September 10, 2016 12:47 pm

I strongly doubt all deaths where properly reported in India. Thousands would have died in villages and never made govt stats.
High temperatures are business as usual in an Indian summer
Northern Europe architecture is not well suited to sudden and unusual heat (I was living there at the time and was far more uncomfortable than higher heat at home in Australia)
Lack of family support (many families leave their older relatives at home and go on holidays)
Overall the found the death rate that year was pretty normal, just sadly bought the demise of some people forward due to the heat wave

benofhouston
Reply to  chaamjamal
September 10, 2016 2:34 pm

Precisely, SMC. In 2005 there was a similar heat wave in France, with a tiny fraction of the same deaths.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  commieBob
September 10, 2016 12:13 pm

My conclusion, cooler temperatures are more dangerous than warmer ones.

September 10, 2016 4:51 am

Where I live in Thailand it gets very hot and yet we are inundated by Scandinavian retirees who love it here and are having the time of their lives. They are in no hurry to go back to where they came from. Could it be that it is climate modeling and not warm weather that creates Violent Uneducated Unproductive Wastelands?

Chris
Reply to  chaamjamal
September 10, 2016 4:53 am

Lol, being retired is a lot different than working in rice paddies, sewing in a textile factory, or working in construction. The last time I checked, GDP productivity for a country is not based on retired people, since by definition they are not working!

commieBob
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 6:51 am

Retired people spend plenty of money. The goods and services they consume are reflected in the GDP. Some folks think the Florida economy is driven by retirees and tourism. link

Chris
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 12:43 pm

“Retired people spend plenty of money. The goods and services they consume are reflected in the GDP.”
Yes, they do. But that is not what we are discussing here. We are talking about the productivity of workers in tropical climates. That has nothing to do with the spending patterns of retirees.

commieBob
Reply to  Chris
September 11, 2016 7:12 am

Chris says: September 10, 2016 at 12:43 pm
… That has nothing to do with the spending patterns of retirees.

Actually, it does.

“Our state’s economy is unlike any other in the country,” Rich told the association, according to Miami Herald reporter David Smiley who attended the speech. “Today, tourism and retirees are the dominant economic engines in our state. And while they do create jobs, they are mostly lower-paying service industry jobs.” (link above)

Economics is complicated. 🙂

September 10, 2016 5:04 am

“Overall, findings from this literature point to climate as an important influence on the historical evolution of the global economy,”
Absolutely right about that. Warmer is better than colder. We have proved that several times over the last few thousand years without the benefit of climate models.

Latitude
September 10, 2016 5:21 am

such as temperature, rainfall, and violent storms…
Miami
http://theblogthatatemiami.com/files/2011/01/Pinecrest-Dec-Sale-240×187.jpg

Bruce Cobb
September 10, 2016 5:24 am

“Sure, there’s prolonged heat and drought in some places, persistent floods and storms in others—all the ways we’ve learned to see global warming (though some still reject the science).”
Yes. Because we see weather everyday, and weather is climate. Science.

September 10, 2016 5:50 am

I stopped reading after the ridiculous statement:
“It doesn’t take a PhD to see that climate affects our lives. Anyone who lives far enough from the equator can tell just by opening the closet.”
You know what’s mostly in MY closet you wanker? WOOL SWEATERS. LONG SLEEVE SHIRTS, WOOL PANTS and long underwear. The climate is getting warmer? Then why the hell do I have more pants than shorts and keep looking for flannel lined jeans so my legs don’t freeze?!
Why the hell are my tomatoes rotting from the bottom in my garden? Why are my pumpkins all ready orange? And WHY are the trees changing at the end of August? Not just this year but the last couple of years.
We’re getting warmer? Again, where the heck are we getting warmer exactly? Only in your isolated and sterile computer model dude….because if I can tell climate change from my closet–I say it is getting COOLER with a shorter growing season rather than warmer with a longer one.
As for the heat….sorry, I grew up in a desert…you adjust faster to heat than to cold.

Editor
September 10, 2016 6:12 am

How is Richard Moss a scientist?
Education and Credentials
Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University (1987)
M.P.A., Princeton University (1983)
B.A., Carleton College (1977)
http://www.pnl.gov/science/staff/staff_info.asp?staff_num=5688
When did “public affairs” and “public administration” become sciences?
This guy has advanced degrees in bureaucracy.

Chris
Reply to  David Middleton
September 10, 2016 12:56 pm

Do you make the same comments when you read posts by Christopher Monckton, with a degree in Classics?

John_C
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 4:29 pm

Funny, I don’t recall anyone calling Classics a science. Nor Viscount Monckton claiming his degree made him a scientist.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
September 11, 2016 12:14 am

So let me understand what you are saying. It’s ok to write papers on climatology and call yourself a climate change expert without a background in that area as long as you don’t call yourself a scientist – as does Monckton. But as soon as you call yourself a scientist, as does Moss, you are a fraud. Is that your position?

Reply to  Chris
September 11, 2016 3:52 am

Another moronic red herring fallacy. Lord Monckton has nothing to do with this article or the underlying paper.
The article and his official job description refer to Dr. Moss as a government scientist. The credibility of the article rests solely on the claim that this is the work of climate scientists. This is nothing less than fraud.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
September 12, 2016 10:24 pm

“The credibility of the article rests solely on the claim that this is the work of climate scientists. This is nothing less than fraud.”
What an epically vacuous retort. Here is the leading paragraph in Worrall’s post: “Bloomberg has helpfully drawn together a series of dire predictions from the latest US government report about how climate is going to make us less educated, unproductive, violent, and too heat exhausted to work. My question – how do they explain Singapore?”
I replied to that point, if you want to go off on unrelated tangents, that’s entirely your decision. I addressed the main point of the article, if you are incapable on staying on topic, that is your problem, not mine.

Reply to  David Middleton
September 10, 2016 6:53 pm

Setting aside the moronic Red Herring fallacy… Lord Monckton’s job description doesn’t include the word “scientist.”

Richard H. Moss
Senior Staff Scientist V
Joint Global Change Research Institute

Dr. Moss is officially listed as
a scientist… When did bureaucracy become a science? The odds are that he’s classified as a publishing climate scientist, as it pertains to the 97% lie.

Chris
Reply to  David Middleton
September 11, 2016 12:07 am

It is interesting that when someone like Monckton is criticized for publishing papers on atmospheric science without a relevant degree, skeptics say that degrees in that field should not be a requirement to publish. And yet when someone like Dr. Moss publishes, he is attacked for having insufficient scientific background.

Reply to  David Middleton
September 11, 2016 3:53 am

Another in a series of moronic red herring fallacy. Lord Monckton has nothing to do with this article or the underlying paper.
The article and his official job description refer to Dr. Moss as a government scientist. The credibility of the article rests solely on the claim that this is the work of climate scientists. This is nothing less than fraud.
The Warmunists rely on argumentum ad verecundiam and ad populum fallacies (appeals to authority and consensus). The meme is that the more expertise and publishing volume a scientist has, the more likely he is to endorse the mythical consensus… The bogus 97%. What fraction of the bogus 97% is comprised of people like Dr. Moss, who is not a real scientist?
Furthermore, refutations of the flawed science and bogus consensus by people like Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick and Lord Monckton are often summarily dismissed because they are not considered to be climate scientists.

john
September 10, 2016 6:27 am

I bet they’ll blame Global Warming on this:
http://nypost.com/2016/09/09/this-is-what-parenting-on-heroin-looks-like/
When it is liberal policies that are at fault.

September 10, 2016 6:28 am

You misunderstand—it’s the researchers and government employees that cannot work under those conditions and fear they may have to try and survive like the rest of the brutal, angry world does. They are afraid, very afraid.

Farmer Steve
September 10, 2016 6:58 am

You deniers obviously have unconscious bias and probably need shock
therapy administered by scientists.

[What is the purpose of this comment? It adds nothing useful and is just an expression of your dislike of people who don’t think like you which is childish. If you have something to the point to say then by all means do so no matter how contrary but that is just abuse. Thanks . . . mod]

Farmer Steve
Reply to  Farmer Steve
September 10, 2016 7:44 pm

ok well that was sarcasm I’m on your side

Dodgy Geezer
September 10, 2016 7:19 am

…If your urine is clear, keep drinking.
If your urine is yellow, drink water.
If your urine is brown, you’re going to die
After a year or two of living in a warm climate, or repeated experience with hot weather, one way or another you learn the rules. …

Or, presumably, die…

FJ Shepherd
September 10, 2016 7:35 am
Latitude
September 10, 2016 7:48 am

well…you have to admit he’s right
…these guys are about as unproductive as it gets
http://d22ir9aoo7cbf6.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/12/Featured-Image-TBC.jpg

SMC
Reply to  Latitude
September 10, 2016 2:41 pm

I want to be unproductive like that. 🙂

Editor
September 10, 2016 7:52 am

Corn == Current US production is at just over 168 bushels per acre a high point in the plateau of > 150 bushels per acre achieved in 2005 which is the highest production rate in the world.
How then is this true? “For example, we compute that temperature depresses current U.S. maize yields by ~48%” Depresses it from what? See this chart of US corn production — it has never been higher.
When temperatures were lower, 1975, 1985, 1995 production was 86, 118, 113 bushels per acre respective.
How can the “hottest year ever” be the “highest production ever”?

Editor
Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 10, 2016 8:01 am

An even better look at US corn production : here.

gringojay
Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 10, 2016 9:12 am

Hi kip, – Temperature during the day is not a linear factor in USA corn productivity when looking at different years’ productivity. Above average spring temperatures during planting & higher daytime temperature plays out better for germination of seeds to get more uniform emergence for initial growth of crop.
If the stand of plants encounter dry, rather than rainy, conditions early on then their root growth response is deeper & this improves the individual plant’s capability for nutrient/moisture access . However, moisture is also non-linear in relationship to eventual yield; since a subsequent phase of good rain will then give above average harvest yield.
Going back to temperature again: above average temperature in the later part of the season (USA would be Sept.) onward into actual harvest gives above average crop yields. In between the mentioned time frames I mentioned for USA there are other nuances for aspects loke temperature/moisture/fertilzation/genotype of corn.
In that time interval, with regards to temperature alone, above average yields are not linearly related to whether daytime temperature is above or below average. The dynamic for that growing interval is to a large extent how extreme is the variation between day & night temperature. During this period above average corn yields are recorded when this temperature differential is less pronounced than in other years (except in genotypes bred for growing where the 24 hour temperatures are always very different at night than during the day).
I have not checked this general timing of rain & temperature pattern against any specific years of high yields anyone may cite. Nor have I colated data on vegetative growth phase diurnal temperatures for the different USA states’ respective contribution to anyone’s cited high corn yield years. For the sake of brevity I have overlooked photo-period, tasseling % times, fertilization timing, etc., etc., etc.

Editor
Reply to  gringojay
September 10, 2016 1:50 pm

gringo ==> Well, yeah. That why I can’t figure why the highlighted study says something “not possibly correct” — that being == “we compute that temperature depresses current U.S. maize yields by ~48%” “

benofhouston
Reply to  gringojay
September 10, 2016 2:46 pm

Agreed, GringoJay, it’s not simple in the least.
However, the demonstrated fact that current production is at a record high of several times that of only a few decades ago contrasts highly with the claim that we would have almost double our current production if temperatures were 1F lower. That’s just not rational.
I don’t have to be an expert in agriculture to see that that claim is insane. 10%, maybe. I’d buy that as plausible, if raw conjecture. However, the 48% number shows that their model produces absurd results, and the fact that it was published puts their entire paper into question.

FTOP_T
September 10, 2016 8:00 am

In a time of world food surpluses, what exactly is the greatest risk: climate change or the “socialist” promoting it?
In a sane world, the people supporting these studies would be on trial for crimes against humanity. If these morons generating this study want to know what a world on the brink looks like, go to Venezuela where eliminating private enterprise has an entire nation starving to death. Climate change does not make people angry. Lying, incompetent, evil socialists whose profane policies are killing millions cause starving people — who are REALLY angry – right before they die.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09/06/venezuela-prepares-cut-food-supplies-anti-socialist-strongholds/

September 10, 2016 8:12 am

There is no experiment that can be done to prove these theories right or wrong. We can’t do controlled studies on climate. The conclusions are based on correlation from observational data and that is where any fantasy can be validated. In the simplest terms the human condition has been improving for centuries: reduced risk of violence, increased life expectancy, increased health, better nutrition, increased wealth, higher standard of living, wider dissemination of support for human rights, and just a hell of a lot more of us. Nature calls this success, so whatever climate change there has been can only have had a positive effect on the human condition if any.
This is the type of publication produced when one starts with a predetermined conclusion and then fishes through data for support.

Slipstick
September 10, 2016 8:18 am

Citing Singapore, where agriculture represents less than 0.5% of the economy, as a comparative for global adaptability to climate is absurd.

yarpos
Reply to  Slipstick
September 10, 2016 12:57 pm

Dont think he did that actually. He did however point out that just blandly saying temperature causes social mayhem and lack of productivity is clearly false.

John_C
Reply to  Slipstick
September 10, 2016 4:40 pm

Claiming that heat causes sloth and violence is absurd. Pointing out that a densely populated city in the tropics is one the worlds safest and most productive rebuts the claim.

John_C
Reply to  John_C
September 10, 2016 4:41 pm

… one of the …

Chris
Reply to  John_C
September 10, 2016 11:57 pm

No, your claim does not rebut it, because they do it with air conditioning, very large chunks of the economy are done indoors in air conditioned environments.

Reply to  John_C
September 11, 2016 2:00 pm

Chris
You mean that air conditioning is the only solution needed for global warming?

Chris
Reply to  John_C
September 12, 2016 11:30 pm

ptolemy2, sure, AC is the answer if we can air condition all of our agricultural sector, and all warehouses and factories. Is that what you are suggesting?

Chris
Reply to  John_C
September 12, 2016 11:32 pm

“Claiming that heat causes sloth and violence is absurd.” Sure, a siesta is just an unfounded excuse to take a nap during the middle of the day. The phrases “keep your cool” and “don’t be a hothead” are just made up phrases that have no basis in reality.

benofhouston
Reply to  Slipstick
September 10, 2016 5:17 pm

I would think that the correlation in Singapore is for education and crime.
Agriculture can be shown by the fact that there is plenty of agriculture of all crops from Russia and Canada to Brazil and Egypt.

Mickey Reno
September 10, 2016 9:08 am

Mr. Ross, before i respond to your ridiculous assertions, is your mother a good or poor bowler?

troe
September 10, 2016 10:11 am

Why do these jackbags always have trouble explaining things to the great unwashed? Could it be that it’s difficult to sell a sack of BS to people with a little common sense. It takes years of practice and many failures to become a master grifter. Usually this vocational education path involves entanglement with the law
Speaking of which….. The Administration has committed yet another shameless illegal act in halting the Dakota Access Pipeline. All of the environmental impact studies and permitting was c molested. The owners should go straight to the higher courts to get this over turned.

troe
Reply to  troe
September 10, 2016 10:14 am

Completed not molested. Damn spell check.

Bill Powers
September 10, 2016 10:31 am

“..the scientists who peddle such claims should be ashamed of spouting such obvious nonsense.”
Eric – cutpurses and pickpockets do not feel shame.
You dare mess with their revenue stream? Were it not for – the Global warming boogieman – how would they get funded to make their mortgage and BMW Lease.payments? And you wish to cut out their paid vacations to Paris and other exotic locales? You have no sense of humanity. How’s are dishonest scientists bureaucrats suppose to make a living?

Chris
Reply to  Bill Powers
September 10, 2016 12:58 pm

Right, all those BMW driving climate scientists who vacation in Paris. As usual, no substantiation provided.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 2:31 pm

Chris do you really believe that these folks are not benefiting financially from the advancement of the Man Made Climate Catastrophe?
Is it so difficult to believe or do you fall into the camp of they deserve the richness of life they lead for ringing the alarm bell so effectively?
I promise you that they work every day at preserving their income and benefits stream. That is human nature and if you need substantiation then you are supremely naive.
Oh and they are not vacationing. These are taxpayer funded junkets. They are partying with excessive spending on food, drink and lodging. Paris was the culmination of many junkets, it was the fiscal year end celebration of the Faithful.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 11:49 pm

Bill, I believe they are benefiting financially in the sense that they have a job. But getting rich? No, far from it.
Your point about preserving their income applies to every field of endeavor. So are you saying that accountants are cooking books, medical researchers are falsifying the results of tests of new vaccines, and agricultural workers are faking the results of new strains of wheat? Why is their pervasive corruption in climatology and not in other research fields? It makes absolutely no sense

Bill Powers
Reply to  Chris
September 11, 2016 12:20 pm

Chris what I am saying is a cottage industry has sprung up since the declaration that the debate was over and the science was settled. Why are we still paying scientists, educators, and mostly bureaucrats for settled science. Why is grant money, mostly spent with low accountability, flowing to the tune of billions. If your science is settled then, Last person out the door needs to turn off the lights.
A lot of money is being transferred from the private sector taxpayer to the public sector and the higher education industry. The media and Hollywood are feeding off this nonsense like suckle fish. And the taxpayer has no say in this spending.
When someone in the private sector complains about those who are benefiting from these government transfer payments, they are told to shut up, they are decried as deniers, they are defamed, slandered and belittled. Those who are in the recipient line, again, billions of dollars are being transferred, make above average salaries, work low pressure jobs making these above average salaries and enjoy upgraded travel accommodations to go on “conferences” to sit in circle jerks congratulating each other on how smart they are in for pulling of this flim flam. I have been at a resort location where one such conference was taking place and gotten it first hand from a feeder. No greater hoax has ever been played.

emsnews
September 10, 2016 11:36 am

‘Drink plenty of water’ isn’t the answer at all. I grew up in some of the hottest deserts on earth such as Death Valley, for example. Your body gets used to the heat and you don’t guzzle water, that makes you sick to the stomach! You drink heavily at sunrise and sunset. We had no air conditioners in the 1950s, we had ‘swamp boxes’ instead.

Chris
Reply to  emsnews
September 10, 2016 12:59 pm

Swamp boxes only work in areas with low humidity,they will not work in high humidity locations such as Singapore.

CNC
Reply to  Chris
September 11, 2016 12:00 am

“Swamp boxes only work in areas with low humidity, they will not work in high humidity locations such as Singapore.”
Chris, true, but what is your point? Air-conditioning does work quite well in Singapore. No matter where you live in the world humans adjust our home and workplace environments to make it more comfortable.
Take Thailand which you mentioned up thread and Malaysia. They have many high tech factories that are fully air-conditioned making all sorts of goods from computer hard drives to shoes. The days of the sweat shops is slowly going away. In the tropics of Southeast Asia most jobs are moving to the cities with fewer people engaged in agriculture and those that are use more technology to make their jobs easier. These countries are no longer 3rd world countries but 2nd world. They can easily handle 2 C warming or more. Key to adapting is low cost electricity which cannot be supplied by solar and/or wind, where nuclear and a mix of hydro, gas and coal can.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
September 11, 2016 3:59 am

CNC, it is not true that most factories have air conditioning. Have you ever been to Jababeka, the huge industrial park outside Jakarta? It has more than 1000 factories, of which only about 15% are air conditioned. Shoes, furniture, textiles, aviation repair, basic warehousing – it is not cost effective to AC those buildings, even with low cost electricity. The margins made by the manufacturers simply do not permit it. AC is used for electronics, pharma and food processing where it is required by the processes.

yarpos
Reply to  emsnews
September 10, 2016 1:03 pm

you dont guzzle it, and I dont think he said that. You drink regularly and maintain hydration.

September 10, 2016 2:59 pm

Hot and humid Singapore is one of the safest and most pleasant cities on earth to visit. Its population enjoys increasing incomes of over 6% p.a. The Singapore’s education system is one of the best in the Worl. Crime is almost totally absent. If hot weather is bad for us, the results are certainly not being seen in Singapore near the equator.

Chris
Reply to  ntesdorf
September 10, 2016 11:43 pm

It’s called air conditioning. Singapore has overcome the adverse affects of hot weather by using AC. That in no way proves that hot weather has adverse impacts on productivity, in fact, it confirms it – else why bother with AC?

Chris
Reply to  Chris
September 10, 2016 11:44 pm

I meant to say “that in no way proves that hot weather does not have adverse impacts on productivity”

CNC
Reply to  Chris
September 11, 2016 12:06 am

Same as cold weather affects performance. Temperature does affect performance is 100% true. I do not think Eric was saying it does not. Humans adapt to there surroundings quite easily. There is AGW but not CAGW.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
September 11, 2016 4:03 am

Air conditioning is a not a viable option for many sectors, it’s a matter of economics.

Gary Pearse
September 10, 2016 4:56 pm

I saw a study that says the climate is going to change big time on November 8th. Coal miners will be back to work, the Alaska pipe line is going to get filled up for another 50yrs, and the fracking on federal lands will keep us supplied with low cost energy. Romania is entirely underlain by hydrocarbon shales and most other countries have resources of it. Yes we will eventually be needing another source of energy but this WILL be nuclear, maybe in a half a century fusion energy. Predicting nuclear is so bloody obvious that it is a trivial forecast.
Democrats are “…going to make us less educated, unproductive, violent,…”
As they turn more and more neomarxbrotherish, it would get worse. However, it is clear that so-called simple folk will stand for only so much of this and the switchover will be dramatic. Climate scientists with more of a mathematical and scientific bent (probably 5% of them) better start abandoning the elitist ship and begin producing honest climate science. The great extinction they have forecast will be themselves.

Bob Grise
September 10, 2016 11:09 pm

I live in Minnesota. A very cool place 7- 8 months out of the year. A friend of mine from here moved to southern Alabama. I naively asked him how he could tolerate the oppressive heat and humidity of his new state, (which is probably similar to Singapore’s weather for part of the year). My friend said it is called Air conditioning. Hhhmmm…makes sense. Next subject…. LOL

Keith
September 11, 2016 3:31 am

Over the last century millions of United States military personnel routinely lived, trained and fought in some of the hottest places on earth. All the while wearing heavy clothing and carrying their body weight in combat gear and often with limited water supplies. In the last 13 years military personnel have operated in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley or southern Helmand province wearing body armor and Kevlar helmets often sitting enclosed in combat vehicles or exposed combat outposts lacking air conditioning.
Those veterans that have time to even be concerned with climate take a very dim view of this government-sponsored nonsense. Hot is when you have lived and operated months at a time with 100lbs of gear on in direct sunlight in the temperatures recorded below.
Last months recorded temperatures Baghdad, Iraq from Accuweather. June through September are very similar.
August 2016 Baghdad Temperatures
Mon 8/1 118°/77° 0 in 0 in 111°/78°
Tue 8/2 118°/80° 0 in 0 in 111°/78°
Wed 8/3 119°/81° 0 in 0 in 111°/78°
Thu 8/4 117°/80° 0 in 0 in 111°/78°
Fri 8/5 118°/82° 0 in 0 in 111°/78°
Sat 8/6 117°/77° 0 in 0 in 111°/78°
Sun 8/7 112°/80° 0 in 0 in 111°/78°
Mon 8/8 110°/76° 0 in 0 in 111°/78°
Tue 8/9 114°/80° 0 in 0 in 111°/78°
Wed 8/10 115°/78° 0 in 0 in 111°/78°
Thu 8/11 117°/79° 0 in 0 in 111°/78°
Fri 8/12 116°/80° 0 in 0 in 110°/77°
Sat 8/13 116°/82° 0 in 0 in 110°/77°
Sun 8/14 117°/83° 0 in 0 in 110°/77°
Mon 8/15 118°/80° 0 in 0 in 110°/77°
Tue 8/16 110°/81° 0 in 0 in 110°/77°
Wed 8/17 109°/79° 0 in 0 in 110°/77°
Thu 8/18 110°/71° 0 in 0 in 110°/77°
Fri 8/19 110°/76° 0 in 0 in 109°/76°
Sat 8/20 113°/77° 0 in 0 in 109°/76°
Sun 8/21 116°/81° 0 in 0 in 109°/76°
Mon 8/22 116°/77° 0 in 0 in 109°/76°
Tue 8/23 117°/78° 0 in 0 in 109°/76°
Wed 8/24 117°/79° 0 in 0 in 109°/76°
Thu 8/25 118°/77° 0 in 0 in 108°/75°
Fri 8/26 118°/80° 0 in 0 in 108°/75°
Sat 8/27 119°/79° 0 in 0 in 108°/75°
Sun 8/28 120°/82° 0 in 0 in 108°/75°
Mon 8/29 119°/82° 0 in 0 in 108°/75°
Tue 8/30 120°/79° 0 in 0 in 107°/74°
Wed 8/31 119°/82° 0 in 0 in 107°/74°
Keith

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Keith
September 11, 2016 7:07 am

Keith, if you are giving the temperature also in celsius, it should be closer to 44C. You seem to have subtracted the “32”F but forgot to multiply that result by 5/9.

Keith
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 11, 2016 1:29 pm

Gary:
The table copied is copied from Accuweather all temperatures are degrees Fahrenheit and I did not change them to Celsius. The 0 in 0 in is precipitation and the first set of numbers were recorded temperatures for the date and the second set are average temperatures for that date.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/iq/baghdad/207375/august-weather/207375?monyr=8/1/2016&view=table

September 11, 2016 4:56 am

Then why are blacks in freezing cold Chicago so violent?

tadchem
September 11, 2016 2:03 pm

“For example, we compute that temperature depresses current U.S. maize yields by ~48%”
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lvcQDaR56xg/Trfc71LwF3I/AAAAAAAAQKs/KKi6Ng03gVU/s1600/corn.jpg
If there is a correlation, it is NOT with temperature or CO2 levels.

JohninRedding
September 11, 2016 5:08 pm

“Climate change is making us angry. It may also cause more assaults, murders, and even poor math grades for your kids.” I would guess that if you are inclined to believe everything you read posted by a so called “expert”, you would fall for such a statement. But I find statements like this insulting. Sure we sometimes get mad at the weather but it nothing to do with long term climate change. The weather is an everyday event and in a year’s time it would be hard to sense whether it has been hotter for the entire year. As far as more assaults, murders and math grades(?) how does that related to climate change? If people are inclined to believe in climate change, these type of articles will certainly make them angry. I guess it is true, even if it is all phony.

September 12, 2016 6:07 pm

This highlights the desperate hyperbole that surrounds thinking about greenhouse warming. Proponents of the shaky theory grasp at virtually any straw to drive home their carbon-damning message about warming. This has nothing to do with science. This is one more ham-fisted attempt to ram the idea of greenhouse warming down everyone’s throat, whether the actual evidence supports the theory or not. Such doctrinaire methodology is disturbingly reminiscent of such authoritarian regimes as that of Nazi Germany, and is neither scientific nor democratic.

%d bloggers like this: