Global warming: what can’t it do?
Posted by Richard on December 5, 2018
For several decades, climate scientists dependent on government grants for a living have been warning us of all the dire consequences of anthropogenic global warming (AGW; recently rechristened climate change, presumably based on focus group research). It appears to me that they’re doing this to justify massive global wealth redistribution and greatly increased government control of the economy, which is what the people controlling the flow of money to those climate scientists want.
Those climate experts, along with people like Al Gore (whose only expertise is in hucksterism), have argued that AGW will melt the ice caps and raise sea levels, drown Manhattan, Florida, and countless islands, cause droughts, cause flooding, increase the number and intensity of hurricanes, destroy the ski industry, create horrific winter storms (“snowmageddon”), threaten coffee production, bring forth plagues of locusts, and countless other harms.
The odd thing is that they (or their predecessors) have been sounding the alarm since the late 70s, and virtually every time with an ominous warning of the dire consequences of inaction within ten years. And yet, each decade has passed without those dire consequences coming to pass. Makes you wonder about the accuracy of those computer models on which all their predictions are based, doesn’t it?
But the scientists who feed at the public trough (and that’s a lot of them) aren’t going to give up trying to please their statist masters. So we’ll keep seeing new studies like the one showing that milder winters (brought about, of course, by AGW … oops, climate change) cause increased crime.
What a revelation! The scumbags who can’t bring themselves to do an honest day’s work are more likely to break into your car or home when it’s mild outside than when it’s friggin’ cold and snowing to beat the band. Criminals spend more time out and about when it’s comfortable outside than when it’s miserable. Just like the rest of us.
During certain seasons, namely winter, milder weather conditions increase the likelihood … that violent and property crimes will take place, according to the new study. Unexpectedly, warmer summer temperatures were not linked with higher crime rates.
The new research abates existing theories that hot temperatures drive aggressive motivation and behavior, according to the study’s authors. Instead, the new research suggests crime is related to the way climate alters people’s daily activities.
“We were expecting to find a more consistent relationship between temperature and crime, but we weren’t really expecting that relationship to be changing over the course of the year,” said Ryan Harp, lead author of the study and a doctoral candidate in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. “That ended up being a pretty big revelation for us.”
Understanding how climate affects crime rates could expand the boundaries of what scientists would consider to be a climate and health connection, Harp said.
Health connection? Yep, that’s what he said. Crime is now a public health issue. We’re way past the days when “public health” had to do with communicable diseases, where the government used its power to prevent innocent people from being exposed against their will to those diseases. Now, “public health” is anything that “will have an impact on people’s wellbeing.” So drug use became a public health issue, smoking became a public health issue, obesity became a public health issue. Why not crime?
At least this study throws cold water on the idea that hotter summers increase crime. But what about the possibility that beyond a certain point, hotter temperatures reduce crime? Sure, the average worthless slimeball who breaks into cars, homes, and stores, or who mugs pedestrians or rapes women, is just as likely to be out and about whether it’s 70°. 80°. or 90°. But what about when it’s 100°, or 110°? I’m guessing that there’s a point where the criminal element would rather stay in their air-conditioned domicile doing some TV binge-watching. Just like the rest of us.
I suspect that if the globe is actually in a long-term warming trend for whatever reason (and keep in mind that it hasn’t even come close to what the computer models predicted, and we’re overdue for an ice age), the effect on crime may be a wash, with more in the winter and less in the summer.
Rick Shultz said
I like your last two posts quite a bit. You have managed to call out the Dems on their “more knowledgable than thou” attitude and their absolute BULLSHIT trumpeting about the so-called global warming crisis.
There are 2 reasons why the Democrats will call you ignorant and stupid if you don’t believe their explanation and question it. 1) That’s just the way liberals argue, and 2) Not every science that has something to do with it is being used to try to inject some LOGIC into the “climate change” bugaboo. Climatology, while a respectable science, is not the only science that helps explain climate change. Astrophysics, which deals with change in the motions of the sun and all the major planets and provides
a much more correct and believable explanation, but it is ignored because it absolutely does NOT fit into the Democratic narrative on the causes of planetary periodic warming. Statistics are also quite useful. “Greenhouse” gasses have been in our atmosphere over the history of this planet as has been shown in ice core samples. And the figures we get from these that approximate temperature before direct measurement began don’t correlate with the amounts of these gasses at any particular time. If you look at astrophysics, you find that Newton’s work doesn’t quite cover the motions of the sun or the planets as observed. The reason is that the center of the sun is NOT the center of mass of the solar system. A point known as the “barycenter” is the actual point that all the planets and moons orbit. The barycenter is the point between two objects where they balance each other. It is the center of mass where a moon orbits a planet or a planet orbits a star. Both bodies actually orbit around a point that lies outside the center of the larger body. The moon doesn’t orbit the exact center of the Earth. It actually orbits a point on a line between the center of the Earth and the Moon that’s about 1,710 km below Earth’s surface. The solar system also has a barycenter and, depending on the current locations and masses of all the planets, the barycenter of the solar system is either below the surface of the sun or more than twice the sun’s diameter outside it. So the sun does a wobble around it. This results in cycles of changing irradiance of all the planets, including Earth, which has several cycles one of which is a 30 year cycle in which the heat the side facing the sun gets is changing by about 3% which doesn’t sound like a lot until you realize that’s about 40 watts per square meter. That comes out to a total of 1.0305 x 10 to the 10th power MEGAWATTS of heat; an amount which could not be added to the atmosphere by any human activity including what the Gaia worshippers add in hot air. This whole thing is well documented and has been known for literally centuries. Of course none of this matters to the Democrats or their paid lap-dog “climate scientists” and you won’t hear the MEDIA say that the vast majority of legitimate physicists and climate scientists do not believe that there IS a global warming crisis of any sort, but they DON’T and if you can get them to talk about it when there aren’t any reporters around you can get quite an earful.