Global Warming Update
- Thread starter NoDrama
- Start date
Big P
Well-Known Member
I see that and raise you this!
Study: Global Warming Causes Violence
Released: 3/19/2010 1:00 PM EDT
Source: Iowa State University
Newswise If global warming is a scientific fact, then you better be prepared for the earth to become a more violent place. That's because new Iowa State University research shows that as the earth's average temperature rises, so too does human "heat" in the form of violent tendencies.
Co-authored by Craig Anderson, a Distinguished Professor of psychology and director of Iowa State's Center for the Study of Violence; and Matt DeLisi, an associate professor of sociology and director of ISU's criminal justice program, the paper was presented by Anderson this week (March 15-19) at the Sydney (Australia) Symposium of Social Psychology.
Using U.S. government data on average yearly temperatures and the number of violent crimes between 1950 and 2008, the researchers estimate that if the annual average temperature in the U.S. increases by 8°F (4.4°C), the yearly murder and assault rate will increase by 34 per 100,000 people -- or 100,000 more per year in a population of 305 million.
And while the global warming science has recently come under fire, the main premise behind the Iowa State researchers' paper is irrefutable.
"It is very well researched and what I call the 'heat hypothesis,'" Anderson said. "When people get hot, they behave more aggressively. There's nothing new there and we're all finding the same thing. But of the three ways that global warming is going to increase aggression and violence, that's probably the one that's going to have the most direct impact -- even on developed, wealthy countries, because they have warm regions too."
The ISU researchers analyze existing research -- including an update on a study Anderson authored in 1997 -- on the effects of rising temperature on aggression and risk factors for delinquency and criminal behavior.
In addition to the "heat hypothesis," they report that rising global temperatures also increases known risk factors for the development of aggression in violence-prone individuals -- such as increasing poverty, growing up amid scarce resources, malnutrition and food insecurity. They contend that one of the most catastrophic effects of climate change will be food availability, producing more violence-prone individuals in the process.
An author and editor of two new books on delinquency and the development of serious criminality -- "Criminological Theory: A Life-Course Approach" and "Delinquency in Society: The Essentials" (Jones and Bartlett Publishers) -- DeLisi's found that it's a layering of risk factors that ultimately lead to a person becoming a serious offender. In fact, one of his new books promotes a life-course understanding of antisocial conduct -- from prenatal through adulthood -- and how various risk factors contribute to persistent offenders.
And food scarcity is one of the risk factors.
"While there is some link between temperature and aggression, really the effects [of climate change] are going to be more indirect if those temperature changes affect the amount of food we can produce, coupled with population growth," DeLisi said. "Then where the real damage will be done is malnutrition, because that sets in motion these other developments [risk factors] that then lead to crime."
DeLisi also cites the forced migration from the damage of Hurricane Katrina as an example of how criminal activity may be exported by an increase in extreme weather caused by global warming.
"It's not just normal folks who left New Orleans. It's also criminals," he said. "And so as a lot of the people from New Orleans relocated to Houston, what you also had was displacement of gangs from New Orleans and confronting Houston gangs -- resulting in an increasing number of homicides from their conflicts."
The authors cite ecomigration, civil unrest, genocide and war as the third way global warming is going to increase violence. They report research finding that rapid climate change can lead to changes in the availability of food, water, shelter and other necessities of life. And such shortages can also lead to civil war and unrest, migration to adjacent regions and conflict with people who already live in that region, and even to genocide and war.
"There have been some recent reports [cited in the paper], and one was a U.N. report on climate change and women and children," Anderson said. "It pointed out that whenever there was an ecological disaster, women and children tend to be the most victimized in terms of violence. The reasoning is that women, in most of the subsistence cultures, are often more responsible for food and the children, and so they can't pack up and leave as easily. And so they're left vulnerable to violent activities."
Anderson plans to continue studying the effects of climate change on resulting violence.
Study: Global Warming Causes Violence
Released: 3/19/2010 1:00 PM EDT
Source: Iowa State University
Newswise If global warming is a scientific fact, then you better be prepared for the earth to become a more violent place. That's because new Iowa State University research shows that as the earth's average temperature rises, so too does human "heat" in the form of violent tendencies.
Co-authored by Craig Anderson, a Distinguished Professor of psychology and director of Iowa State's Center for the Study of Violence; and Matt DeLisi, an associate professor of sociology and director of ISU's criminal justice program, the paper was presented by Anderson this week (March 15-19) at the Sydney (Australia) Symposium of Social Psychology.
Using U.S. government data on average yearly temperatures and the number of violent crimes between 1950 and 2008, the researchers estimate that if the annual average temperature in the U.S. increases by 8°F (4.4°C), the yearly murder and assault rate will increase by 34 per 100,000 people -- or 100,000 more per year in a population of 305 million.
And while the global warming science has recently come under fire, the main premise behind the Iowa State researchers' paper is irrefutable.
"It is very well researched and what I call the 'heat hypothesis,'" Anderson said. "When people get hot, they behave more aggressively. There's nothing new there and we're all finding the same thing. But of the three ways that global warming is going to increase aggression and violence, that's probably the one that's going to have the most direct impact -- even on developed, wealthy countries, because they have warm regions too."
The ISU researchers analyze existing research -- including an update on a study Anderson authored in 1997 -- on the effects of rising temperature on aggression and risk factors for delinquency and criminal behavior.
In addition to the "heat hypothesis," they report that rising global temperatures also increases known risk factors for the development of aggression in violence-prone individuals -- such as increasing poverty, growing up amid scarce resources, malnutrition and food insecurity. They contend that one of the most catastrophic effects of climate change will be food availability, producing more violence-prone individuals in the process.
An author and editor of two new books on delinquency and the development of serious criminality -- "Criminological Theory: A Life-Course Approach" and "Delinquency in Society: The Essentials" (Jones and Bartlett Publishers) -- DeLisi's found that it's a layering of risk factors that ultimately lead to a person becoming a serious offender. In fact, one of his new books promotes a life-course understanding of antisocial conduct -- from prenatal through adulthood -- and how various risk factors contribute to persistent offenders.
And food scarcity is one of the risk factors.
"While there is some link between temperature and aggression, really the effects [of climate change] are going to be more indirect if those temperature changes affect the amount of food we can produce, coupled with population growth," DeLisi said. "Then where the real damage will be done is malnutrition, because that sets in motion these other developments [risk factors] that then lead to crime."
DeLisi also cites the forced migration from the damage of Hurricane Katrina as an example of how criminal activity may be exported by an increase in extreme weather caused by global warming.
"It's not just normal folks who left New Orleans. It's also criminals," he said. "And so as a lot of the people from New Orleans relocated to Houston, what you also had was displacement of gangs from New Orleans and confronting Houston gangs -- resulting in an increasing number of homicides from their conflicts."
The authors cite ecomigration, civil unrest, genocide and war as the third way global warming is going to increase violence. They report research finding that rapid climate change can lead to changes in the availability of food, water, shelter and other necessities of life. And such shortages can also lead to civil war and unrest, migration to adjacent regions and conflict with people who already live in that region, and even to genocide and war.
"There have been some recent reports [cited in the paper], and one was a U.N. report on climate change and women and children," Anderson said. "It pointed out that whenever there was an ecological disaster, women and children tend to be the most victimized in terms of violence. The reasoning is that women, in most of the subsistence cultures, are often more responsible for food and the children, and so they can't pack up and leave as easily. And so they're left vulnerable to violent activities."
Anderson plans to continue studying the effects of climate change on resulting violence.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
LONDON - The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.
The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee will report today that they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming - two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.
In their report, the committee said that, as far as it could tell, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."
The 14-member committee's investigation is one of three launched after the dissemination, in November, of e-mails and data stolen from the research unit. The e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics' research out of peer-reviewed journals. One that attracted much media attention was Jones' reference to a "trick" that could be used to "hide the decline" of temperatures.
The e-mails' publication ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit sparked an online furor, with skeptics of man-made climate change calling the e-mails' publication "Climategate" and claiming them as proof that the science behind global warming had been exaggerated - or even made up altogether.
Phil Willis, the House committee's chairman, said of the e-mails that "there's no denying that some of them were pretty appalling." But the committee found no evidence of anything beyond "a blunt refusal to share data," adding that the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.
In a briefing to journalists ahead of the report's release, Willis said the controversy would ultimately help buttress the case for global warming by forcing the University East Anglia - and other research institutions - to stop hoarding their data.
"The winner in the end will be climate science itself," he said. Another winner was Jones, who stepped down temporarily as chief of the climate research unit about week after the e-mail scandal broke. The committee expressed sympathy with Jones, whom Willis said had been made a scapegoat.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/daily/20100331_U_K__s__Climategate__probe_largely_clears_scientists.html
Remember when you guys were saying how when they have investigations into "climategate" the scientists would pay!
lol
The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee will report today that they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming - two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.
In their report, the committee said that, as far as it could tell, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."
The 14-member committee's investigation is one of three launched after the dissemination, in November, of e-mails and data stolen from the research unit. The e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics' research out of peer-reviewed journals. One that attracted much media attention was Jones' reference to a "trick" that could be used to "hide the decline" of temperatures.
The e-mails' publication ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit sparked an online furor, with skeptics of man-made climate change calling the e-mails' publication "Climategate" and claiming them as proof that the science behind global warming had been exaggerated - or even made up altogether.
Phil Willis, the House committee's chairman, said of the e-mails that "there's no denying that some of them were pretty appalling." But the committee found no evidence of anything beyond "a blunt refusal to share data," adding that the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.
In a briefing to journalists ahead of the report's release, Willis said the controversy would ultimately help buttress the case for global warming by forcing the University East Anglia - and other research institutions - to stop hoarding their data.
"The winner in the end will be climate science itself," he said. Another winner was Jones, who stepped down temporarily as chief of the climate research unit about week after the e-mail scandal broke. The committee expressed sympathy with Jones, whom Willis said had been made a scapegoat.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/daily/20100331_U_K__s__Climategate__probe_largely_clears_scientists.html
Remember when you guys were saying how when they have investigations into "climategate" the scientists would pay!
lol
this is kinda interesting, ... http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
[youtube]WDSvqsr_k-M[/youtube]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries
From 2005 to 2008, Koch industries donated $25 million to groups opposed to climate change, $5.7 million on political campaigns and $37 million on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industries. Between 1997 and 2008, Koch Industries donated a total of nearly $48 million to climate opposition groups.[14] Additionally, Koch Industries founded Americans for Prosperity, formed as a successor to Citizens for a Sound Economy. Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more than $20 million on lobbying in 2008 and $5.6 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.
This is also interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries
From 2005 to 2008, Koch industries donated $25 million to groups opposed to climate change, $5.7 million on political campaigns and $37 million on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industries. Between 1997 and 2008, Koch Industries donated a total of nearly $48 million to climate opposition groups.[14] Additionally, Koch Industries founded Americans for Prosperity, formed as a successor to Citizens for a Sound Economy. Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more than $20 million on lobbying in 2008 and $5.6 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.
This is also interesting...
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
[youtube]x1Qlc3s8XL4[/youtube]
500 million years of climate history, I'd really like your opinions on the information here, guys.
500 million years of climate history, I'd really like your opinions on the information here, guys.
rombomb420
Well-Known Member
Actually, yes, that is all bullshit. The polar bear population has more than doubled in the last 30 years. & if sea levels are rising, how do you explain cliffs like the cliffs of Dover, the Adriatic cliffs, or the cliffs of mohan? You can't explain them any other way other than sea levels used to be much, much higher than they are now! Also no study on climate change that was funded with government dollars (that includes university research, it all must be 100% independent) can be considered objective due to the funding mechanisms involved. Everyone knows it pays to parrot the party line.
rombomb420
Well-Known Member
Not gonna happen when the committee is hand picked by the AGW supporters & the crooks in the EU. Wise up people, this is a worldwide scam on a huge level, most major politicians & scientists have been bought off. The only thing that will stop this nightmare is 50 million pot smokers marching on washington!LONDON - The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.
The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee will report today that they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming - two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.
In their report, the committee said that, as far as it could tell, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."
The 14-member committee's investigation is one of three launched after the dissemination, in November, of e-mails and data stolen from the research unit. The e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics' research out of peer-reviewed journals. One that attracted much media attention was Jones' reference to a "trick" that could be used to "hide the decline" of temperatures.
The e-mails' publication ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit sparked an online furor, with skeptics of man-made climate change calling the e-mails' publication "Climategate" and claiming them as proof that the science behind global warming had been exaggerated - or even made up altogether.
Phil Willis, the House committee's chairman, said of the e-mails that "there's no denying that some of them were pretty appalling." But the committee found no evidence of anything beyond "a blunt refusal to share data," adding that the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.
In a briefing to journalists ahead of the report's release, Willis said the controversy would ultimately help buttress the case for global warming by forcing the University East Anglia - and other research institutions - to stop hoarding their data.
"The winner in the end will be climate science itself," he said. Another winner was Jones, who stepped down temporarily as chief of the climate research unit about week after the e-mail scandal broke. The committee expressed sympathy with Jones, whom Willis said had been made a scapegoat.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/daily/20100331_U_K__s__Climategate__probe_largely_clears_scientists.html
Remember when you guys were saying how when they have investigations into "climategate" the scientists would pay!
lol
dukeofbaja
New Member
Holy shit, anecdotal observations! Surely 97% of scientists have no freakin' way to refute that!
While some polar bear populations are indeed on the rise, most are in decline or not studied thoroughly enough to know one way or the other. Would you care to cite where you got that their populations doubled over the last 30 years? While you're at it, you may want to take a look at the ice levels in the arctic over the last 30 years.....
jeff f
New Member
yea. polar bears are goin extinct. funny shit mr deny-the-obvoius-facts-to the -contray guy.
polar bears eat people! lets kill the ones near people or capture them and put them in a cage. good idea? i think so
dukeofbaja
New Member
Agreed. Polar bears that eat people should be locked into cages. You have my support 100%.
dukeofbaja
New Member
Fuck putting him in a cage, you have full authority to kill and eat that fucker of a polar bear....what a savage
dukeofbaja
New Member
Fucking savages....*shakes head solemnly* Let's put them on reservations....we shall call them 'zoos'
EDIT - so many videos online nowadays, so little time in each day....those were fucking badass
EDIT - so many videos online nowadays, so little time in each day....those were fucking badass
dukeofbaja
New Member
Well aren't you the devil's advocate 
I remember going to see a taxidermied bear back in some museum in New Jersey back in the day. Not as good as watching them fuck in the zoo...that is my firm stance
I remember going to see a taxidermied bear back in some museum in New Jersey back in the day. Not as good as watching them fuck in the zoo...that is my firm stance