• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Syrian war, terrorism and climate change

Mycroft

High Priest of Ed
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
19,871
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/11/23/prince-charles-syria-climate-change/76248500/



Earlier this week Bernie Sanders said there is a direct link between terrorism and climate change. This article has Prince Charles claiming a direct link between climate change and the war in Syria. In the past I’ve heard it said the genocide in Rwanda, and presumably other conflicts as well, are caused by climate change.

My personal opinion is not to just disagree, but to say that making claims like this takes the responsibility away from the people who perpetuate this violence and also discredits climate change science as well.

At the same time, I could be wrong. Maybe there is a direct link and I’m just not seeing it. I’d really love it of someone knowledgeable would spell it out, connect the dots, and make me change my mind, or at least show me that there is a compelling argument for it.
 
My personal opinion is not to just disagree, but to say that making claims like this takes the responsibility away from the people who perpetuate this violence and also discredits climate change science as well.

I don't know. It's just a way to help explain the factors involved. If there's a famine and it causes people to loot or riot, does it take responsibility away from the rioters and looters to mention the famine as one cause of their actions?
 
If the notion is that higher population density leads to conflict and leads to global warming because the more people there are, the more fossil fuels being burned, the more factory farms necessary to feed them, the more cities and the larger those cities need to be to house them... etc, etc, etc...

Then I think that's obviously got to have a lot of truth to it.

As we approach 10 billion people on this planet, our species really becomes VERY environmentally devastating. Especially since the entire species is trying to achieve the kind of high consumption lifestyle America has modeled for them and promoted via movies, television, etc.

Population projections for Africa put that continent at 4 billion people by 2100.

What hope will the African elephant, lions, gorillas, rhinos, etc. have when the population there is so huge? What will it do to the climate for that many more people and all the animals they will require to be producing methane and consuming and burning fossil fuels and everything else?

How much demand will there be on the bush meat industry at that point?

This is why, for the planet's sake, and also for the sake of humanity who will have much more conflict as populations rise, resources become scarce, and people are shoulder to shoulder - I advocate trying to stop the spread of the first world lifestyle to the whole species. Stop it by not permitting immigration to first world nations which, encouragingly, have been lowering their populations. Stop trying to fight this downward trend of population numbers, because it would be good.

I also advocate trying to do anything and everything we can to lower the population in the third world itself, because it is absolutely out of hand. To this end I would set up sterilization clinics throughout the third world, offering sterilization for free or even incentivizing it or even making it a condition of receiving aid.

Some will say this is extreme but I do think if we don't do things like this the planet is absolutely done for.
 
I don't know. It's just a way to help explain the factors involved. If there's a famine and it causes people to loot or riot, does it take responsibility away from the rioters and looters to mention the famine as one cause of their actions?

That's great in theory, but saying how climate change could promote terrorism isn't at all the same as making a link between climate change and actual terrorism.
 
Why does climate change only make Moslems commit acts of terror? There are Christians, Zoroasters, animists, Jews, Yazidis, agnostics and atheists in the MidEast but only one group seems to be act out. Weird. You don't suppose it could be the...nahhh, that's crazy.
 
But "Spurius correlations" <http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations> said Piracy is related to global warming, so must be Sanders right.

But we do know that global warming causes Nigerian Moslems to be voted in as Presidents of the USA. ;)

Maybe Sanders needs to vette his references a bit.
 
I also advocate trying to do anything and everything we can to lower the population in the third world itself, because it is absolutely out of hand. To this end I would set up sterilization clinics throughout the third world, offering sterilization for free or even incentivizing it or even making it a condition of receiving aid.

Might as well create a positive evolutionary bottle-neck while you're at it. Sterilize everyone except those with above average intelligence, physical attributes and disease resistance. Do that for about 3 generations and not only can you drastically reduce the world population, but you make make 3rd world populations noticeably genetically superior to first world populations.
 
Belz, I think one of those was supposed to be "tourism" ?
 
Might as well create a positive evolutionary bottle-neck while you're at it. Sterilize everyone except those with above average intelligence, physical attributes and disease resistance. Do that for about 3 generations and not only can you drastically reduce the world population, but you make make 3rd world populations noticeably genetically superior to first world populations.

You make that sound like it's a bad idea?

If it were up to me, the entire species would be subjected to extremely rigorous eugenic measures immediately.
 
Whenever I want accurate commentary on the complex relationships between socio-economic and climatological factors I always defer to Prince Charles, champion of homoeopathy and person-to-plant communication, and the chubby Welsh princess of pop Charlotte Church, famous for singing and being vacuous. And whilst I've heard of Bernie Sanders I'm not too sure who he is, something to do with chicken I believe.
 
I don't know what Sanders or Charles specifically said, but people have linked the civil war in Syria with a ~4 year drought (one of the most severe ever recorded) that happened. That's probably at least what Charles is referring to.
 
You make that sound like it's a bad idea?

I do? How so?

If it were up to me, the entire species would be subjected to extremely rigorous eugenic measures immediately.

Only draw-back is if you're looking to protect the environment, the wars caused by this would probably do more harm than good.

ETA: I just thought of another draw-back. Billions of dead people.
 
Last edited:
I think Man Caused CLimate change is a reality, but don't try to blame everything that is wrong in the world on it like some people do.
 
So the bottom line is a link between climate change and conflict may be plausable in the future, at the moment it's bull.
The theory is sound, at the moment there isn't a conclusive causal link, but there's nothing to suggest that it is "bull" either.
 
The theory is sound, at the moment there isn't a conclusive causal link, but there's nothing to suggest that it is "bull" either.
Well, it's "bull" in that no link is established, so someone making the claim would be speaking out of their arse.

Could it happen? Sure. Has it happened? Show me the proof.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Well, it's "bull" in that no link is established, so someone making the claim would be speaking out of their arse.

Could it happen? Sure. Has it happened? Show me the proof.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Well, you've already admitted that this topic concerns you because you somehow believe that it takes away blame from the guilty, so when a compelling case is made that there is something to the effect, you saying it's bs is pretty transparent.

Personally I am not a citizen and I wouldn't vote for Bernie Sanders anyway; the Clown Prince is certainly a bit of a knob. But, people who make policy and make decisions don't always have the luxury of time that scientists and amateur debaters on the internet do, waiting for definitive proof isn't prudent sometimes. While he may have gone a little far with his terminology, the notion that no one should talk about this is laughable.
 
Last edited:
Well, you've already admitted that this topic concerns you because you somehow believe that it takes away blame from the guilty, so when a compelling case is made that there is something to the effect, you saying it's bs is pretty transparent.

I'm not entirely sure what our disagreement is; you're the one who linked to the article that said Bernie Sanders went too far with his claim, and I agree with that.

Could one argue that climate change contributed to ISIS? Well, kinda. Syria was suffering a drought, which may have put stress on the government and weakened it's ability to deal with ISIS.

Or not. Maybe there was no effect. You can't even difinitively say that the drought is a result of climate change because droughts have always happened. The proposal is entirely theoretical. The focus of the study Sanders referenced wasn't even terrorism. At best climate change is plausable, in a theoretical sense, as a contributing factor. Much more immediate factors are racial tensions, religious tensions, instability caused by the war in Iraq, the availablility of top brass military personal from when the Bush administration fired the Iraqi military, the vaccuum in power caused by the withdrawal from Iraq of the Obama administration, the rise of violent ideologies funded by the Saudis....lots and lots of real factors that are not theoretical at all.
 
I'm not entirely sure what our disagreement is; you're the one who linked to the article that said Bernie Sanders went too far with his claim, and I agree with that.
He overstated the claim based on the terminology he used, but other than this quibble, nothing else to call bull.

Could one argue that climate change contributed to ISIS? Well, kinda. Syria was suffering a drought, which may have put stress on the government and weakened it's ability to deal with ISIS.

Or not. Maybe there was no effect. You can't even difinitively say that the drought is a result of climate change because droughts have always happened. The proposal is entirely theoretical. The focus of the study Sanders referenced wasn't even terrorism. At best climate change is plausable, in a theoretical sense, as a contributing factor.
I think when you look at the case that the Defense Department made, "theoretically plausible" is as much understating it as much as saying there is a direct causul link is overstating it.
Much more immediate factors are racial tensions, religious tensions, instability caused by the war in Iraq, the availablility of top brass military personal from when the Bush administration fired the Iraqi military, the vaccuum in power caused by the withdrawal from Iraq of the Obama administration, the rise of violent ideologies funded by the Saudis....lots and lots of real factors that are not theoretical at all.
Where did anyone say it was the main cause?

Hey is your browser's spell checker disabled? :p
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom