• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • No Link Between Global Warming and Civil Wars

    Global Warming hysteria

    Proponents of domestic and international global warming regulations like to argue that human-induced climate change could affect the safety of not only the U.S. but other countries as well. They suggest that global warming will lead to more natural disasters, which will in turn lead to increased global conflict.

    Even the Department of Defense now considers climate change a threat to U.S. security. Exercises from the National Defense University concluded that “over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.”

    But according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, that’s not the case. Halvard Buhaug, senior researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo’s Centre for the Study of Civil War and author of the study, said:

    Climate variability in Africa does not seem to have a significant impact on the risk of civil war. If you apply a number of different definitions of conflict and various different ways to measure climate variability, most of these measurements will turn out not to be associated with each other.

    My article points to the fact that there has been too much emphasis on single definitions of conflict and single definitions of climate. Even if you found that conflict, defined in a particular way, appeared to be associated with climate, if you applied a number of complementary measures—which you should do in order to determine the robustness of the apparent connection—then you would find, in almost all cases, the two were actually unrelated.

    Worse, climate treaties to cap carbon dioxide emissions would do little to address climate change and a lot to cripple economic competitiveness. These treaties would limit the resources available to effectively prepare and respond to either natural disasters or national security threats. Carbon caps would cause energy prices to soar, and as a result, production would decrease, resources would become scarcer, and innovation and entrepreneurial activity would fall.

    These are the sorts of conditions that could actually give rise to actual conflict.
    Heritage’s nation security expert James Carafano testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year that climate change is not a threat to national security. He stressed that “any changes in the climate, for better or for worse, will occur gradually over decades. Thus, there will be ample time to adjust national security and humanitarian assistance instruments to accommodate future demands. Those adjustments can and should be made with the most appropriate instruments, which might comprise any or all of the elements of national power including diplomatic, economic, political, and informational tools as well as the armed forces.” If the Obama Administration decides to fight this war on climate change and enter into a multilateral treaty to reduce CO2, the U.S. would ultimately lose, coming out of the battle with a weaker economy, weaker security, and weaker personal freedoms.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to No Link Between Global Warming and Civil Wars

    1. Pingback: » No Link Between Global Warming and Civil Wars - Heritage.org (blog)

    2. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    3. S Rubicon, Southcent says:

      While Dr. Mann of Penn State tried to eliminate the medieval warm period in his now disgraced "Hockey Stick" that the UN IPCC tried to use to hype their climate change political agenda, the truth is warmer will not necessarily be bad for us.

      During the medieval warm period, mankind experienced the "Renaissance" which produced magnificent gains for mankind, including more freedoms & better living conditions for average man that led to remarkable positive advances for mankind.

      Colder climates mean more deaths. Those are actual facts. We will have issues to deal with, but the truth there is we can adapt as we always have. If we lived through the medieval warm, why can't we do so now & progress as well?

      Please note: if mankind were to reduce its carbon emissions levels to pre 1990 levels for 30 years, we "MIGHT" reduce temperatures by a whole ONE DEGREE F.

      Are we really willing to do that, and destroy our economic life? That is what it would take. And, there would be no real gain. Plus, its actually better to get warmer than colder. AND, its been getting cooler over the past ten years. Oops!

    4. Dan Pangburn says:

      Global warming has stopped. Objective application of science and engineering reveals the cause of temperature trends since 1895 including the temperature run-up in the last half of the 20th century and the flat temperatures since.

      Research, with latest findings regarding projected temperature trends is reported at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&…. The 6/27/10 pdf there presents a rational equation that accurately calculates the average global temperatures since 1895 with a coefficient of determination of 0.88. That means that it explains 88% of the measured temperatures for 114 years and counting. The best that GCMs have done is significantly less than this. The equation shows that CO2 is at most a minor contributor and predicts that the future trend of average global temperatures will be down. The above link and sub links, including links to the temperature data reported by the five reporting agencies, track the data back to the published credible sources. The work can be verified by anyone competent with a spreadsheet.

      From 2001 through June 2010 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 20% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased significantly and the trend of yearly averages from 2001 through 2009 is down. The El Nino that made early 2010 appear to be a bit warmer than the down trend, peaked in March, 2010 and average global temperature is now declining.

      This El Niño warmed the air enough for NOAA to announce the warmest ever period. They failed to say that ‘ever’ includes only the last 130 years or so which includes part of the recovery from the Little Ice Age. They also failed to mention that the new record was only 0.02C higher than the previous record. A more correct announcement would have been that the temperature has not changed significantly for over a decade. Saying that the average global temperatures are the hottest on record is about as profound as saying that you drove 10,000 miles last year and the last 10 days were among the greatest distance traveled since the beginning of the year.

    5. Ben C. Ann Arbor, MI says:

      Something about chicken little comes to mind. It is clear the strategy is to link weather to everything possible to then justify the control of weather. Who in their right mind thinks they can control weather? Clearly not governments – regardless of the burdens placed on society in the name of "climate change" to fund their social agendas. November can't come soon enough.

    6. Mike Morris says:

      May want to check on that whole "disgraced hockey stick" thing. The findings by numerous scientific instituitons including the National Academy of Science has upheld Mann's findings.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×