Nej, tusindvis af nye videnskabelige studier har IKKE "trukket i klima-skeptisk retning"

[Dette indlæg er også bragt på ScienceBlog.dk - giv os et klik!]

---

Civilingeniør Frank Lansner viderebringer i sin blog på Børsen en variant af en falsk nyhed, der for tiden er trendy i klimabenægtende kredse: at en masse ny forskning skulle modbevise menneskeskabte klimaforandringer. Han skriver blandt andet:

"Det vælter ind med resultater der trækker I klima-skeptisk retning. [...] De 2 seneste år er publiceret henved 1000 klimarelaterede videnskabelige artikler [1] med resultater og konklusioner der på forskellig vis ikke synes at bekræfte at katastrofal menneskeskabt global opvarmning skulle være indtruffet. [...] Denne flod af artikler indikerer også at naturen hyppigt kan flå Jordens temperaturer op og ned igen og igen. Og dermed også at Jordens fauna og flora har evnet at komme igennem dette."

Lansners kilde er utroværdig
Bemærk hvordan Lansner med sit "[1]" henviser til en kilde som en sand akademiker. Han har dog kun to i alt: [1] er NoTricksZone, en kendt klimabenægter-blog, og [2] et af Lansners egne blogindlæg (fra maj 2017, også vildledende).

I teksten henviser Lansner til en tysk ekspert ved navn Pierre Gosselin. Denne er lige som Lansner ingeniør - og det er ham, der driver NoTricksZone. I forbindelse med dokumentarfilmen og bogen Merchants of Doubt blev det dokumenteret, at Gosselin er "højt på strå" i klimabenægterkredse.

Gosselin har på sin hjemmeside NoTricksZone længe fremført kendte, tilbageviste klimamyter. Som for eksempel at tidligere tiders varme perioder modbeviser menneskeskabte klimaforandringer i dag, at Jorden er for stor til, at os mennesker kan opvarme den, dårlig fysik og har henvist til forfalskede kilder.

Gamle usandheder med nye overdrivelser
I juni 2017 bragt Breitbart.com nyheden om, at 58 videnskabelige artikler fra første halvår 2017 modbeviste menneskeskabte klimaforandringer. Breitbart.com er et konspirationsteoretisk, stærkt højreorienteret, racistisk netmedie, der mest er kendt for at bringe en lind strøm af falske nyheder designet til at støtte Donald Trump under dennes valgkamp mod Hillary Clinton.

Breitbarts artikel henviste til en artikel på NoTricksZone, genbrugte en række (tvivlsomme) grafer og tilføjede sprog fra deres karakteristiske politiske møgspreder. Snopes.com har grundigt tilbagevist hver enkelt påstand i Breitbart og NoTricksZone's artikler. Blandt andet har Snopes kontaktet de forskere, NoTricksZone har brugt som kilder, og ikke en eneste ville bakke op om, at deres forskning kunne bruges til at konkludere sådan, som NoTricksZone har gjort. Snopes citerer flere forskere, der i varierende grader af harme korrigerer NoTricksZone; således for eksempel geolog Fatima Abrantes:

Artiklen er så dårlig, forfatteren ikke en gang opdager, at den figur, de har taget fra min forskningsartikel, ikke viser ny data, men gammel data, der viser en anomali i atmosfæren over det nordlige Spanien, produceret af andre forskere i 2011 og brugt som sammenligningsgrundlag. Vores resultater er i overensstemmelse med både globale og regionale prognoser, der tyder på, at denne region i Europa er blandt de mest sårbare med hensyn til global opvarmning.

Det er disse allerede grundigt tilbageviste artikler, Frank Lansner baserer sit blogindlæg i Børsen på. Og det er dem, han har kopieret sine grafer fra.

"De 2 seneste år er publiceret henved 1000 klimarelaterede videnskabelige artikler [1] med resultater og konklusioner der på forskellig vis ikke synes at bekræfte at katastrofal menneskeskabt global opvarmning skulle være indtruffet," skriver civilingeniør Frank Lansner d. 28. november 2017 på Børsens blogsider.

Det vælter ind med varmerekorder
Det ville helt sikkert fryde klimabenægterne, hvis ny forskning rent faktisk modbeviste menneskeskabte klimaforandringer, så de ikke længere behøvede fabrikere deres falske nyheder. Desværre for dem er det præcist modsatte tilfældet: Den lille fraktion af forskning, der ikke understøttede menneskeskabte klimaforandringer, viser sig ikke at holde; november 2016 publicerede Theoretical and Applied Climatology et studie, der diskuterede fejlslagne forsøg på at reproducere de omdiskuterede "3% klimaskeptiske" studier.

Den lille fraktion af klimatologien udgjorde et halmstrå, klimabenægterne kunne klamre sig til. Men det halmstrå er nu så godt som væk. I mellemtiden taler virkeligheden sit eget sprog, idet 2017 bliver et af de varmeste år nogen sinde målt.

Når Børsens blogger kan berette om "henved 1000 klimarelaterede videnskabelige artikler", hvor selveste Breitbart kun kunne få det til 58 - så må han vel have en cirka 17 gange mere livlig fantasi end Trumps bedste trolde? Spørgsmålet er, hvad Børsen selv synes, de får ud af at lægge navn til en så usand online klumme?

---

Afgørelsens time (Time to choose)

"Hvis man ser på lande, der er afhængige af naturlige ressourcer, ser man en sløv udvikling, stor ulighed, autoritære regimer og udbredt korruption." - Peter Lewis, John Hopkins University 

"I hele verden, i Saudi-Arabien, Iran, Irak, Rusland og Afrika, fører olie til korruption, diktatur og krig. Verden ville være et bedre sted, hvis vi ikke havde brug for olie. Og det har vi snart ikke mere." - speaker 

Se Charles Fergusons dokumentar gratis på DR.dk indtil d. 29. april 2017.

IMDb.com | Official site

---

2014 bookmarks - the year in war over natural resources

From the depths of my bookmarks (that were all automatically tweeted) on conflict and natural resources, here is a quick review of the way in which Earth was plundered for natural resources in the past year. Year 2014, the 100^th anniversary of the first war to run on oil.

In short, 2014 was just more of the same. Like...

• Geneva Conventions once again violated in Palestine as the conflict seems to be increasingly linked to natural resources,
  
• gold and diamonds helped the Central African Republic explode in brutal violence,
  
• the indigenous protester José Isidro Tendetza Antún being murdered just in time for COP20,
  
• Central Asia drying up a bit more.
  

But a lot more of the same also means obscure news stories grow into reports from acknowledged organizations—like when

• NASA found out we're headed for irreversible collapse,
  
• Global Witness built a terrifying graph from the reports of murdered environmentalists and
  
• The World Bank concluded climate change will lead to battles for food.
  

Some of the worst news this year was how Islamic State grew out of the chaos in Iraq and Syria, and became known not as the richest terrorist group in the world, but as the poorest terrorist country. Because they successfully occupy and exploit vast oil fields, loot everything lootable while controlling many smuggler's routes and ruthless dealers. I get how they control the population by mass executions rivaling the worst in history, denying crucial water supplies to villages and other callous misdeeds. But how do they manage to sell oil worth millions of dollars every single day even as all eyes are on the region? Money talks, of course, anywhere and anytime, but still?

Part of the answer came in this fascinating report by Suzan Fraser and Yilmaz Akinci from the border between Turkey and Syria, where... hillbillies, basically... tell how they have always been smuggling. Everyone did it. For generations. So, suddenly a few more bearded men came with a bit more oil than usual. It worked for a time, but Turkish police cracked down on it. Their large scale “pipeline” was smacked into smaller, obscure “pipelines” - like the ones the Islamic terrorists have for every other country, apparently.

Probably more efficient that the Turkish police, however, is the Saudi Arabian financial muscle. To them and most of their allies, the sum of benefits of a low oil price seems to currently triumph the more obvious benefits of a high oil price. Mainly by cutting the cash flow to Iran, Syria, Islamic State, Russia, even North American non-conventional (fossil) energy producers and others. In fact, I've seen some speculate Saudi Arabia has almost won the war on Ukraine's behalf as Russia's weakening rubles soon cannot pay for any more war. Speaking of Ukraine: This country used to be self-sufficient in coal, but the territory occupied by rebels and Russians just happen to host 66 coal mines, leaving Ukraine's power plants under-supplied; and the shores off now Russian Crimea just happen to be full of gas. What a coincidence.

That was all just slightly scratching the surface of year 2014 in war for natural resources. On slightly more positive notes, Interpol published a most-wanted list of environmental criminals at large – go get 'em – and Egypt and Ethiopia seems to be agreeing on how to share the Nile.

Happy New Year!

---

Watch this one hour preview of Years of Living Dangerously

From the damage wrought by Hurricane Sandy to the upheaval caused by drought in the Middle East, this groundbreaking documentary event series provides first-hand reports on those affected by, and seeking solutions to, climate change.

This episode full of footage from Syria, Texas and Indonesia. Watch it.

---

Addition to reading list: Club of Rome author writes 2052 prognosis

In the book "2052," Jorgen Randers, one of the co-authors of "Limits to Growth," issues a progress report and makes a forecast for the next forty years. To do this, he asked dozens of experts to weigh in with their best predictions on how our economies, energy supplies, natural resources, climate, food, fisheries, militaries, political divisions, cities, psyches, and more will take shape in the coming decades. He then synthesized those scenarios into a global forecast of life as we will most likely know it in the years ahead.The good news: we will see impressive advances in resource efficiency, and an increasing focus on human well-being rather than on per capita income growth. But this change might not come as we expect. Future growth in population and GDP, for instance, will be constrained in surprising ways-by rapid fertility decline as result of increased urbanization, productivity decline as a result of social unrest, and continuing poverty among the poorest 2 billion world citizens. (Presentation at Google Books)

"We need a system of governance that takes a more long-term view [...] It is unlikely that governments will pass necessary regulation to force the markets to allocate more money into climate friendly solutions, and must not assume that markets will work for the benefit of humankind [...] We already live in a manner that cannot be continued for generations without major change. Humanity has overshot the earth’s resources, and in some cases we will see local collapse before 2052 – we are emitting twice as much greenhouse gas every year as can be absorbed by the world’s forests and oceans." - Jørgen Randers at presentation of the book

"Now, at age 66, I realize my concerns have been wasted. Not because the global future is smooth and rosy. My concern has been in vain, because it has not had much influence on world events during the generations that have elapsed since I began to worry. [...] Although things will be more or less alright until 2052, the world will in 2052 be destined down the road, I really fear, the road to self-reinforcing climate change and climate disasters in the second half of the century. I certainly don't see a world in a well-planned course towards sustainability" - Jørgen Randers to Danish newspaper Information

• 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years at Google Books
• The Club of Rome: New Report issues a warning about humanity’s ability to survive without a major change in direction
• Information / Fremtiden: En rodet affære med lavvækst og klimakaos

Truck driver busted with stolen glacier - denialism & jokes ensue

So, Chilean police have arrested a truck driver with 5 tonnes of "endangered" glacier ice.

My first thoughts were of the tragic irony: poor people worsening an environmental catastrophe (glacier degradation) probably to mitigate its effects (droughts) in what affordable way they could conceive (theft in response to water supply being privatized). Then the denial forecast kicked in: Climate change "skeptics" will now be wittily and/or insanely claiming glaciers aren't melting, they are getting stolen. Al Gore probably the kingpin of the glacier mafia.

Most news reports have been aiming for cheap jokes so far:

• MSNBC / Glacier theft suspects on thin ice with Chilean police
• RT / On the rocks behind the bars
• The Guardian / Glacier thief arrested in Chile
  "Sceptics have cited other explanations [than global warming] for retreating glaciers, but theft – until now – was not one of them. It may be the only case in which both sides agree human activity was to blame."

Ha, ha. For a short, factual article with pictures of the actual loot see The Telegraph / Police investigate glaciar theft. It appears to be speculation, but several articles report a plot to sell the 1000+ years old ice for fancy drinks. What is certain is now the ice will be used to mitigate drought stricken farms.

---

America vs Europe trade war over carbon looming

The European Union is about to take two small steps on the long journey of combating climate change: A small "tax" on air travel and another small tax on fossil fuels based on exactly how polluting the specific type of fossil fuel is. Both could ultimately end up in WTO courts; the former brought there by the US, the latter by tar sands would-be super-power Canada.

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011

The Republican majority US House of Representatives voted to bar US airlines from paying the tax on carbon emissions ("European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011"). The airline tax is part of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) from 2008; it hands out 85% of the industry's emissions to them for free, lets them buy the remaining 15% on a free (dirt cheap) market. The industry estimate the tax would cost US airlines about $3.1 billion between 2012 and 2020.

"This bill could ignite a trade war that would put tens of thousands of U.S. jobs in jeopardy. [...] By barring U.S.- based airlines from complying with applicable law for flights traveling to EU airports, this bill would compel those airlines either to drop their EU routes or become scofflaws."
- Annie Petsonk, Environmental Defense Fund

Pause for a second to consider the opposite situation: The EU or other countries prohibiting their corporations to comply with a US environmental law. Not to mention the facts that the Republican's arguments - that the EU law is a "competitive disadvantage" and in "violation of international law" are both simply wrong. Dear Obama, please archive this law in your paper recycling bin.


Sources: Bloomberg / U.S. Vote on EU Aviation Plan May Start Trade War, Environment Group Says, Think Progress / House Could Start Trade War With Europe Over Airline Greenhouse Pollution, Green Economy / Republican-Majority House Votes Trade War against Europe, Center for American Progress / House Airline Bill Risks Diplomatic Fallout and Disaster to U.S. Industry.

The Fuel Quality Directive

A tax based on the relative environmental harm done by different kinds of fuel doesn't sound that bad an idea does it? Well, Canada, currently projecting the billions it plans to make from transforming huge swaths of forest into polluted gravel deserts, consider it a European political attack on them. Elsewhere this would file under "conspiracy theory".

"We have the knowledge and the fact that the oil sands are more CO2-polluting than other kinds of fuel [...] And therefore we say it should have a specific value. It's nothing targeted against this particular fuel. We are doing that with all our different biofuels. It's the same methodology that we are applying for different things in the same directive [...] And now we are discussing this also with our member states, with the Commission, which has proposed this."
- Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard

"Canada's plans for tar sands will put the world on track for 6 degrees of warming, way past the globally accepted limit of 2 degrees [...] Six degrees would be game over."
- Franziska Achterberg, Greenpeace

The Fuel Quality Directive ranks...

• coal-to-liquid: 172 grams of carbon per megajoule
• oil shale: 131.3 grams
• oil sands crude: 107 grams
• conventional oil: 87.5 grams

Greenpeace is blaming Britain (Canada ally) and Estonia (having oil-shale resources) of delaying the legislation.

Sources: The McGill Daily / Canada opposes EU's labelling of tar sands, Reuters / EU climate chief: science shows Canada oil sand risk, EurActive / Britain accused of stalling EU tar sands regulation.

---

Occupy Wall Street? Occupy Earth! Nature is in the 99%

Remember how Bill McKibben of 350.org gave a short speech at Wall Street lately? He's not the only one connecting the dots between the socially unjust financial crisis and the environment. When I went to Occupy Copenhagen last time I think most of the speakers were mostly going on about the bank bailouts - but I was chatting to the guy next to me about... socially unjust exploitation of natural resources.

In case you missed Bill's speech, here are some highlights for you:

"[...] the company building that ["Keystone XL"] tar sands pipeline was allowed to choose another company to conduct the environmental impact statement, and the company that they chose was a company was a company that did lots and lots of work for them [... in his campaign Obama said] "It’s time to end the tyranny of oil.” [...] “I will have the most transparent government in history.” We have to go to DC to find out where they have locked that guy up. We have to free Obama, because there is some sort of stunt double there now. [...] The reason that it’s so great that we’re occupying Wall Street is because Wall Street has been occupying the atmosphere. That’s why we can never do anything about global warming. [...] The sky does not belong to Exxon. They cannot keep using it as a sewer into which to dump their carbon."

More dots are connected in Chip Ward's How the 1% Pillage the Environment:

"[...] when there’s money to be made, both workers and the environment are expendable [...] If you are a CEO who skims millions of dollars off other people’s labor, it’s called a “bonus.”  If you are a flood victim who breaks into a sporting goods store to grab a lifejacket, it’s called looting. If you lose your job and fall behind on your mortgage, you get evicted.  If you are a banker-broker who designed flawed mortgages that caused a million people to lose their homes, you get a second-home vacation-mansion near a golf course. If you drag heavy fishnets across the ocean floor and pulverize an entire ecosystem, ending thousands of years of dynamic evolution and depriving future generations of a healthy ocean, it’s called free enterprise.  But if, like Tim DeChristopher, you disrupt an auction of public land to oil and gas companies, it’s called a crime and you get two years in jail. [...] The 1% are willing to spend billions impeding democratic initiatives, which is why every so-called environmental issue is also about building a democratic culture. [...] Tearing apart wildlife habitat to make a profit and doing the same at a workplace are just considered the price of doing business. Clearcutting a forest and clearcutting a labor force are two sides of the same coin. [...] The desperate effort to grow the economy to solve our economic woes is what keeps Timothy Geithner at the helm of the Treasury and is what stalls the regulation of greenhouse gasses.  It’s why we are told we must sacrifice environmental quality for pipelines and why young men and women are sacrificed to protect access to oil, the lubricant for an acquisitive economic engine. [...] we have built an all-encompassing economic engine that requires unending growth.  A contraction of even a percent or two is a crisis, and yet we are embedded in ecosystems that are reaching or have reached their limits. [...] Like so much else these days, the crash, as it happens, will not be suffered in equal measure by all of us. The one percenters will be atop the hill, while the 99% will be in the flood lands below swimming for their lives, clinging to debris, or drowning. [...] Degrading the planet’s operating systems to bolster the bottom line is foolish and reckless. It hurts us all. No less important, it’s unfair. The 1% profit, while the rest of us cough and cope. After Occupy Wall Street, isn’t it time for Occupy Earth?"

And finally: According to Grist / Green issues and greenbacks: Occupy Wall Street connects the dots [VIDEO] the #OWS themed environmentalism Sunday!

"Every bank which you are down here protesting finances extreme energy -- fracking, tar sands development, mountaintop removal, deep water drilling."
- Gasland documentary director Josh Fox

[Update 31st December 2011 via Naomi A. Klein] Occupy sustainability: the 1% are blocking the transition to a renewable energy economy

"To make our society sustainable, we have to deal not just with environmental issues and climate change, but with the economic crisis, and resource depletion. The most effective responses will deal with all three aspects at once.  While climate change response has mostly been blocked, Occupy has gotten traction, channeling public outrage at the bailouts, the debt crisis, and rising unemployment. Occupy supporters should think about putting the transition to a renewable energy economy, which addresses all three aspects of sustainability, at the core of their agenda. The 1% absolutely does not want us to realize how urgently this transition is needed.  Their power depends on keeping the unsustainable fossil fuel economy running as long as possible. They’re heavily invested in it. Of the 10 largest global corporations, 6 are oil companies. To continue making as much money as they can, they would have us wait until it’s too late to make a successful transition."

Follow links to read the full articles.

Climate change and the new geography of violence

One of the unpleasant effects of climate change is its tendency to incite further conflict where such already exist and in some cases war is already looming. Sociologist and writer Christian Parenti is blaming "pathologies of neoliberalism" and Cold War leftovers that converge with climate change effects for inciting further conflict where it already lingers. Already by now large parts of the political landscape are out of the target group of Parenti's message but he supports his assertion by way of his good storytelling based on personal experiences and interviews - and he finishes with an almost pro-capitalism conclusion.

Chapter 2 is pretty much a summary of some of the military reports I have linked to in Ecowar posts tagged 'military' plus a few other. Chapter 3 is a brief history of the US military which at first seems a bit thorough for a climate change book but actually shows how it has been on a long journey from conventional "European" warfare to guerrilla warfare inspired by North American Indian tribes and Ernesto "Che" Guevara. And ends up with a grim forecast (p. 36) of "the essence of militarized adaption to climate chaos: dirty war forever." In part, global counter-insurgency is an adaption to climate change that most of us wouldn't agree to if given the choice.

Part 2 is about Africa and describe how the Cold War proxy-wars have left unresolved conflicts now to converge with climate change effects, mostly via Parenti's own experiences visiting the areas. Most notably the stories from northern Kenyan herders who increasingly arm themselves to defend and raid cattle as droughts kill off livestock. Chapter 7 details the Cold War prequel to the current desert anarchy in Somalia. Chapter 8, the last of part 2, is a brilliant description of what a failed state is exactly.

I traveled in Kenya January/February 2011. This photo is from the suburbs of Kisumu. I enjoyed the view over the Rift Valley and Lake Victoria. It is a bit chilling to read Parenti's stories from Kenya - in fact the book begins and ends with the corpse of a cattle herder left to rot under a tree and the questions of and answers to who killed him. All of the brutal incidents and trends in drought and plunder play out some kilometers away down the great valley.

Part 3 is about Asia and observes how in Afghanistan "the poppy economy and its armed defense are local adaption mechanisms" (wheat use six times more water than poppy which is worth 50 times the price). Chapter 10 is a rare insight to the conflicts in Kyrgyzstan - a lot more interesting than it may sound! Parenti then moves on to the India-Pakistan conflict of declining river flows, provoking dams, mass-murderous droughts, devastating floods, cross border state terrorism, suicide by pesticide Monsanto farmers and Maoist guerrillas. Very complex and under-reported in Western media yet clearly fueled by climate change.

Part 4 is about Latin America and the US. On page 181 Parenti's main message is summed up:

"catastrophic convergence: policies that create poverty and violence are now colliding with the new realities of climate change, and together these three forces are creating socially destructive forms of adaption."

Brazil and Mexico receive treatment in each their own chapters. Not just the always shockingly brutal gang violence is described, so too are more positive examples of coping: an example of organic agriculture and Keynesian economics. The efforts by Bolivia are hailed before the US is described in less than praising terms.

However, although being very critical of neoliberalism and in favor of state run initiatives to halt pollution and force clean technologies forward, Parenti is distancing himself from radical approaches involving revolutionary changes to the economy and society as we know it. First of all for a simple reason: There is no time. We need to start solving the climate problem now, thus we need to start doing it with tools known to work within the capitalist system. And it can be done, Parenti argues, because we have both the technology and the money. Fossil energies probably only have a lead right now because it has been so heavily subsidized for decades. And if there is money now for blowing up bubbles (housing, food etc) to create poverty as prices go up, unemployment and riots as the bubbles burst then, surely, that money could be redirected towards sustainable development.

Christian Parenti's Tropic of Chaos is a great book. Concise, well written and fair in reasoning. It isn't exhaustive as many conflicts from around the world are left untold of. It isn't academic as it assumes basic understanding of the climate, the economy and world affairs and simply move on with its stories from there while it doesn't dig into recent scientific results either. At times, perhaps, it's a bit too much a book of stories as Parenti shares many details of the converging issues. It is brave as it is critical of both the far-right media environment as well as of Bill "350" McKibben. Tropic of Chaos is the third book about how (not if) climate change is causing increased conflict I have read. If you want to read only one book about climate change and war this book should probably be it. (Alternatives are the more imaginative and dystopic Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer reviewed here December 2010 and the scientifically precise and short Climate Conflict by Jeffrey Mazo reviewed here April 2011.)

---

Further reading/viewing for you right now: Large parts of the book can be read at Google Books. Also, Christian Parenti has given interviews on the book and its topics...

From Foreign Policy in Focus / Interview with Christian Parenti:

"The military runs scenarios of what the future will bring. What they see is not so much an increase in conventional warfare between states as an increase in humanitarian crisis, civil war, banditry, religious wars, state breakdown. And they realize that the armed forces will be called on to respond with various forms of low-intensity conflict: counter-insurgency, direct intervention, humanitarian intervention, shoring-up allied states, as well as increased training and advisory roles in these conflicts. [... In international negotiations] The United States has played a non-productive role, a destructive role. It has not taken the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations seriously, and as a result they have broken down. We are the largest economy in the world, and until recently we were the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world before China overtook us. The world looks to the United States for leadership but U.S. actions, especially at Copenhagen, were really depressing. [...] What will change the U.S. position? Protest, clearly. There has to be a movement that forces the Obama administration to do this. The Obama administration is proving itself to be very right-wing on many issues, including this one."

---

Three degrees warming doubles risk of civil war

Global patterns of civil conflict are directly associated with planetary-scale climate change. Specifically in tropical countries, the risk of civil war have just been shown to double in warmer El Niño years (to about 6% risk per country per year) compared to cooler La Niña years (when the risk is about 3%).

"When you think about it, car accidents happen all the time. But they become more likely based on some environmental conditions, like when it's raining or icy. [...] What we found is quite a bit stronger than a mere correlation."
- Solomon Hsiang

Changes in climate - including anthropogenic global warming - have been linked to conflict by historical analysis (see for example Climate change and conflict frequency), security analysts (see "Climate Change and National Security" - presentation by US Navy Admiral David Titley (video)), politicians (see UN Security Council concerned climate change may aggravate threats to peace) and in reviews of existing research (see Just read "Climate Conflict" by Jeffrey Mazo and What does climate change have to do with conflict?).

According to Solomon M. Hsiang and colleagues, however, all of the above evidence is 'anecdotal'. And it certainly isn't as concrete as their own work: Running a wide selection of statistical analysis methods on on the one hand a data set of occurrences of organized political violence of more than 25 battle-related deaths and on the other climatological records of the El Niño / Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon.

Looking into their analysis, the authors note how some conflicts seem to be re-occurring events and some seem to be merely 'displaced' in time, accelerated by the climatic shifts. Also, low-income countries are most strongly affected - but are they more at risk of climate induced conflict because they are poor and lack the means to mitigate the effects of environmental impacts? or are they poor because their political stability is sensitive to the ENSO cycle, perhaps even inherently unstable, conflict prone and poor because they are located where the ENSO climate pattern is strongest? Or is a third factor, not considered in this study, influencing or guiding the sensitivity to climate and poverty in relation to conflict proneness?

The increase in conflict risk during the about three degrees Celsius warmer El Niño years roughly corresponds to the decrease observed when average income is increased tenfold. So, could climate wars 'easily' be eliminated by raising the incomes in tropical countries by a mere 1000%? Hsiang and colleagues warn against generalization of their results to apply to global anthropogenic climate change without throughout discussions of climate-conflict links. Yet, perhaps they need not look far: weather directly influences the effectiveness of agriculture, the output of which determines food supply; and since food demand is not exactly down the recently identified link from food prices to risk of riots appears to be rather significant in this respect.

Hsiang, S., Meng, K., & Cane, M. (2011). Civil conflicts are associated with the global climate Nature, 476 (7361), 438-441 DOI: 10.1038/nature10311

This study covered elsewhere: ars technica / El Niño appearances tied to civil conflicts in tropical countries, TIME / Does El Nino—and Climate Change—Really Cause Civil Wars?, International Business Times / El Nino Doubled Chances of Civil War in Tropical Countries, Scientific American / El Nino Ups Conflict Odds, Huffington Post / Does Climate Drive Warfare? A New Study Suggests There's No Question.

---

News not on my TV, not in my newspaper...

Colombia, oil

The Marxist rebels in Colombia, FARC, bombed an oil company's car. One died, six were injured. Why? Probably as part of an extortion scheme.

"This attack ... is a true crime against humanity."
 - Vice President Angelino Garzon

Well, at least it's an attack on the country's oil business.

View Larger Map
Sources: Reuters / Colombia bomb kills oil worker, injures 6 people, Latin American Herald Tribune / One Killed by Rebel Landmine in Colombia.

Central Asia, water

Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are upstream countries with lots of water fresh from the glaciers in the high mountains of Central Asia. Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are downstream and suffering from the worst drought in decades. The latter are asking for more water from the former, claiming water belongs to everyone and rivers flow free. But Kyrgyzstan is asking for natural resources in return (ie Kazakhstan is the worlds number one uranium producer) and Tajikistan is constructing what will become the highest dam in the world. Kazakhstan refuse to trade in naturals (perhaps preferring world market prices?) and Tajikistan insist on damming the river since their energy supply is already rationed.

Negotiations have stalled. Uzbekistan has cut its gas export to Tajikistan and allegedly is also holding up Tajik exports on its border. Global warming is projected to raise temperatures by 2-3 degrees Celcius within 50 years; the glaciers are already melting because of this and future droughts will only grow in numbers and intensity.

View Larger Map
Source: Spero News / Central Asia: Danger of war over water growing.

The world, climate change

Another renowned columnist is speaking up. This time it's Eric Hammel in Foreign Policy.

I cannot fathom the prevailing so-what attitude as the FEMA-grade weather disasters mount toward becoming serial and routine occurrences. [...] Global famine is going to force the use of our military as a police force organized to feed unknowable masses of people [...] The only force on Earth with the inherent capability to police, process, house, feed, and move refugees on a mass scale is the U.S. military, but, though its reach is global, its capacity and stamina are nonetheless limited, probably to one or two major disasters at a time, not the overlapping rolling meta-disaster climatologists predict.

Read: Foreign Policy / Is climate change the biggest national security challenge we are facing?

---

Where is the water? A 3 min video at Climate Change TV

I made a three minute video about lakes disappearing from Google Maps satellite photos and a rainy day in Copenhagen for Climate Change TV. Check it out.

If you like it, head over to the competition website and vote for it, please.

I haven't had the time to watch all of the other videos yet. But among those I have seen I'd mention The world has malaria and What happened at COP16? Got another favorite? Let me know and I'll check it out.

---

UN Security Council concerned climate change may aggravate threats to peace

On the initiative of small island states, Germany, Britain, the US and other members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) climate change was this week linked to conflict. Steiner and Ki-moon testified to the rationale:

"There can be little doubt today that climate change has potentially far-reaching implications for global stability and security in economic, social and environmental terms which will increasingly transcend the capacity of individual nation states to manage. [...] Competition over scarce water and land, exacerbated by regional changes in climate, are already a key factor in local-level conflicts in Darfur, the Central African Republic, northern Kenya, and Chad, for example-when livelihoods are threatened by declining natural resources, people either innovate, flee or can be brought into conflict. [...] In total, 145 countries share one or more international river basins. Changes in water flows, amplified by climate change, could be a major source of tension between states, especially those that lack the capacity for co-management and cooperation."
- Achim Steiner, UNEP addressing the UNSC

"Extreme weather events continue to grow more frequent and intense in rich and poor countries alike, not only devastating lives, but also infrastructure, institutions, and budgets - an unholy brew which can create dangerous security vacuums."
- Ban Ki-moon, UN

The key sections of the agreed upon statement:

The Security Council expresses its concern that possible adverse effects of climate change may, in the long run, aggravate certain existing threats to international peace and security.

The Security Council expresses its concern that possible security implications of loss of territory of some States caused by sea-level-rise may arise, in particular in small low-lying island states.
- United Nations Security Council statement July 20th, 2011.

Al Jazeera has produced a 25 minute program on the subject including a quite long discussion between three experts: Sabrina Chesterman, a climate change consultant based in South Africa; Tobias Seakin, a senior research fellow and the director of National Security and Resilience; and Cleo Paskal, an associate fellow with the Energy, Environment and Development Programme.


The statement faced opposition and required amendments to pass the vote. What should be obvious to anyone following these issues, Russia, India and China raised skeptic voices against. Notice the strong rhetoric:

"It [climate change] is a threat as great as nuclear proliferation or terrorism... neither have ever led to the disappearance of an entire nation, though that is what we are confronted with today... I often wonder where we would be if the roles were reversed. What if the pollution coming from our island nations was threatening the very existence of the major emitters?"
- Marcus Stephen, President of Nauru

"We have dozens of countries in this body and in this very room whose very existence is threatened. They've asked this council to demonstrate our understanding that their security is profoundly threatened. Instead, because of the refusal of a few to accept our responsibility, this council is saying, by its silence, in effect, 'Tough luck.' This is more than disappointing. It's pathetic. It's shortsighted, and frankly it's a dereliction of duty."
- Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations

Sources: tcktcktck.org / Full text of the UN Security Council Presidential Statement on climate change, Al Jazeera / Is climate change a global security threat?, Huffington Post / UN Council Connects Climate Change to Security, Barely, msnbc.com / UN official warns climate change could lead to conflicts over resources, Deutche Welle / UN says climate change threatens global security, FOX NEWS / Rice Lashes Out at Russia for Blocking U.N. Council From Tackling Climate Change.

Climate news: Change linked to food security, emissions up, denialism alive and well, scientists threatened

I'm a bit behind on taking note of the climate change news. First the bad plus the ridiculous:

CO2 emissions are setting records while old time denier release auto-biographic film

Carbon dioxide emissions hit record levels following global financial crisis lows (Reuters / IEA sees record CO2 emissions in 2010). Apparently now Westerners buy even more goods produced by coal dependent emerging economies. Meanwhile Bjørn Lomborg (see A history of skepticism: Bjørn Lomborg) released a film titled after his last book (Cool it) yet judging from from the mildly forgiving reviews is simply an advertisement of the person. What a depressing combination of news.

Not exactly battlefield news. But it gets worse.

Australian climate scientists given protection following death threats and harassment

We should defend the rights of stupid people as well as people who are simply wrong and let them speak their mind. And even make films that advocate dangerous policies like Lomborgs. But in Australia the anti-environmentalists have reached a new low by threatening scientists whose research helped clear up the uncertainties previously surrounding climatology. Shocking. Remotely understandable if the threats had been directed towards politicians - but threatening the researchers!? (ABC News / Death threats sent to top climate scientists, The Sydney Morning Herald / Death threats to scientists)

Science journal article links climate change to food security

Can't say the study's conclusions comes as much of a surprise. (Science / Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980, New Scientist / Crop yields fall as temperatures rise, The New York Post / A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself)

"In most places we see temperature trends, and they have significantly reduced yield growth."
 - Wolfram Schlenker

Since I'm not blogging that much on climate these days I really hope the next post will be a bit more encouraging. But that depends on people not acting selfishly or stupid.

(Cross-posted at TH!NK)

Leaks and alibis

The batch of US government "cables" published by Wikiliaks last week were partly about natural resource concerns. Some of them were about climate change and the COP-15 summit too so I have already added some quotes to the collection regarding those topics. Read below a selection of quotes demonstrating the imperative role played by natural resource riches in the private communications between US diplomats and Washington; these from embassies in countries surrounding the North Pole.

CANADA TAKES STEPS TO ESTABLISH SOVEREIGNTY OVER CONTINENTAL SHELF

The GOC [Government of Canada] is taking steps to secure sovereign rights over seabed resources that extend to the edge of the continental shelf. [...] Canada's effort to secure sovereign rights may have ramifications with respect to American and Canadian maritime boundary disputes and exploitation of seabed resources, particularly in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. [...] Natural Resources Canada also has a joint initiative with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland to conduct surveys in northern boundary waters. [...] Ironically, in 2005, Canada and Denmark engaged in a spirited debate over the nationality of Hans Island, an uninhabited barren knoll measuring a half square-mile located between Greenland and Ellesmere Island. [...] The United States and Canada have competing maritime boundary claims in places along the Pacific (Dixon Entrance), Atlantic (Machias Seal Island) and Arctic Ocean (Beaufort Sea) coasts. The Canadian effort to claim sovereignty over the continental shelf may complicate these on-going disputes.
- #06OTTAWA2294, 31st of July 2006

SHAPING GREENLAND'S FUTURE

Greenland is on a clear track toward independence, which could come more quickly than most outside the Kingdom of Denmark realize. By 2009, Greenlandic and Danish politicians will complete a new self-rule agreement, the penultimate step toward full independence. Significant oil, gas, and mineral resources - forecast by experts but not yet proven - could propel the Greenlanders after that to ultimately sever their formal ties to Denmark. With Greenlandic independence glinting on the horizon, the U.S. has a unique opportunity to shape the circumstances in which an independent nation may emerge. We have real security and growing economic interests in Greenland, for which existing Joint and Permanent Committee mechanisms may no longer be sufficient. American commercial investments, our continuing strategic military presence, and new high-level scientific and political interest in Greenland argue for establishing a small and seasonal American Presence Post in Greenland's capital as soon as practicable. [...] Greenland holds strategic value for the United States beyond its starring role in the global narrative of climate change. The world's largest island, this remote and sparsely-populated territory of Denmark is three times the size of Texas but home to just 56,000 inhabitants. A U.S. Air Force base at Thule, 500 miles north of the Arctic Circle, hosts important radar that alerts us to incoming missiles over the Pole. American investors are poised to commit $5 billion this year to develop hydropower and smelting facilities there. Exploration and development of Greenland's energy resources are just now beginning in earnest, with enormous potential for American industry. [...] A recent study of hydrocarbon potential, led by the U.S. Geological Survey, concluded the continental shelf off northeast Greenland alone could harbor oil and gas reserves to rival Alaska's North Slope. [...] Whether because of man-made climate change or a massive, cyclical shift in weather patterns, Greenland's carbon riches are more easily accessible now than ever. Meanwhile, the resource possibilities in Greenland are not limited to oil and gas. The Greenland government has issued 68 mineral exploration licenses to international companies, and expects at least five significant new mines to open in the next five years, harvesting everything from diamonds and rubies to molybdenum and zinc. [...] Our radar at Thule is now being upgraded for use in missile defense, while the base there also carries out important satellite command and control functions for the United States. U.S. trade and investment in Greenland is growing, with a multi-billion-dollar aluminum smelter and hydroelectric project planned by Alcoa and new oil and gas exploration underway by major U.S. firms.
- #07COPENHAGEN1010, 7th of November 2007

NORWAY'S DEFENSE POLICY AT A CROSSROADS: CLARITY FROM USG IS KEY

Norway is undergoing a philosophical, bureaucratic and public debate on what its defense policy, obligations and needs will be for the next five to ten years. The outcome
will have significant implications for Norway,s ability to fulfill NATO obligations as well as its ability to cope with the potential of increased military threats in the Arctic.
An additional factor in the debate is increased official interest in Nordic defense cooperation, with a particular focus on Sweden. The planned purchase of 48 new fighter aircraft (relevant to the Joint Strike Fighter program), and a decision on a costly fast patrol boat program top procurement concerns. [...] Norway is changing and USG engagement is key to avoid further drift. [...] Governmental skepticism of defense has been reflected in flat budgets for the last five years, meaning in real terms, decreases in funding. This at a time when Norway accumulated a vast 380 billion dollar surplus in its 'oil fund'. [...] We expect Norway's move toward Nordic cooperation and preference for UN mandated peacekeeping missions to remain, even if the current government does not win the 2009 election. This tend combined with a general antipathy to missile defense, efforts to ban cluster munitions, focus on disarmament instead of non-proliferation and reluctance to use its vast energy wealth to fund defense pending open questions regarding Norway's commitment to be a serious and dependable ally.
- #07OSLO1161, 18th of December 2007

CANADA'S POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2008

Voters remain concerned about the Arctic, and the public has been broadly supportive of the government's ongoing efforts to assert Canadian sovereignty and to improve its ability to defend its Arctic interests. Especially popular were programs to modernize Halifax-class frigates, to purchase new Arctic patrol ships, to deploy additional Canadian Rangers, and to develop a deep water port in the far North. The government will announce a "Canada First" defense strategy early in 2008 further to demonstrate its attention to this issue, as well as to bolster its long-term military modernization program, including purchases of four C-17 Globemaster strategic airlift aircraft, 17 C-130 Hercules tactical airlift aircraft, 16 CH-47 Chinook Helicopters, modern Leopard tanks, and heavy trucks. The new strategy may include purchases of new search-and-rescue aircraft and utility planes, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles, for Arctic coverage and an improved Arctic underwater surveillance system.
- #08OTTAWA1, 2nd of January 2008

DEPUTY SECRETARY'S MEETING WITH DANISH FM MOELLER IN GREENLAND

[The Danish Foreign Minister, Møller] explained that Denmark's initiative convoking and organizing the Arctic Ocean conference arose in light of controversy following the Russian flag-planting on the North Pole seabed. In that context Denmark had perceived a need for the five coastal Arctic states to come together to recognize and affirm their commitment to an orderly claims process and special responsibilities to ensure the safety and preserve the marine environment of a changing Arctic Ocean. [...Møller joked] "if you stay out [of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)], then the rest of us will have more to carve up in the Arctic."
- #08COPENHAGEN322, 6th of June 2008

RUSSIA AND THE ARCTIC: POLICY AND COMPETING VOICES

In March, Medvedev approved Russia's long-delayed Arctic policy. It defined the region as Russia's strategic energy reserve, called for its promotion as a transportation corridor, and sought to balance cooperation with the country's security needs. The policy itself reflects competing voices within the GOR, with security officials emphasizing the deployment of Federal Security Service (FSB) forces and the Russian Foreign Ministry calling for cooperation (although the GOR remains universally allergic to NATO's presence in the region). [...] Behind Russia's policy are two potential benefits accruing from global warming: the prospect for an (even seasonally) ice-free shipping route from Europe to Asia, and the estimated oil and gas wealth hidden beneath the Arctic sea floor. The shipping route would reduce the distance of a voyage from Europe to Asia by 40 percent (if compared to a route through the Suez Canal). These savings in shipping costs to Russia and to Europe are potentially huge, even if the voyage could only be made in the summer months. Artur Chilingarov, Arctic explorer, State Duma member, and the President's Envoy for Cooperation in the Arctic, with the support of Medvedev's administration, has put forward draft legislation that would establish a new regulatory body, "the Administration for the Northern Sea Route," for oversight, management, navigation, and ecological protection. The current draft defines the route as located in "the internal waters, territorial sea, or exclusive economic zone of the
Russian Federation." However, some Russian shippers at a conference held by the Carnegie Moscow Center October 2008 pointed out that short windows of good weather, the presence of unpredictable ice flows, and the lack of logistical and emergency response support would conspire to make the cost of insurance for the Northern Sea Route unfeasible. [...] The Arctic region, both within Russia's legally clarified borders and in areas beyond, likely holds vast untapped resources of oil and gas. While many Russian analysts are skeptical that any of these resources will be economically exploitable in the near future, the Russian leadership wants to secure sovereignty over these "strategic" resources. [...] Despite on-going efforts to renew U.S.-Russian relations, some Russian voices have called the situation in the Arctic a "cold peace" vis-a-vis NATO and the U.S. In April 2008, Russian Navy head Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky said, "While in the Arctic there is peace and stability, however, one cannot exclude that in the future there will be a redistribution of power, up to armed intervention." His statements preceded the July deployment of Russian Northern Fleet missile cruiser "Marshall Ustinov" and anti-submarine ships off the coast of Spitsbergen to coincide with fishing season, and the Russian submarine "Ryazan's" September underwater transit of the Arctic ice sheet, a first since the end of the Cold War. Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev in an interview published in the online media outlet Gazeta.ru March 30 also posited a zero-sum view of the Arctic, assessing that "It is clear that (developments do) not coincide with the economic, geopolitical, and defense interests of Russia (in the Arctic) and is a systemic threat to its national security." In a March 31 interview with Moscovskiy Komsomolets, he declared that "there have been efforts to drive Russia out of the Arctic." To counter these trends, he pointed to the creation of a new FSB coast guard force and calls for new coastal stations to protect Russian territory as outlined in Russia's new policy. Russia's senior Arctic official, Ambassador-At-Large Anton Vasiliyev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov have made efforts to tamp down these more aggressive statements.
- #09MOSCOW1346, 26th of May 2009

NORWAY'S 2010 DEFENSE BUDGET: HIGH NORTH AND INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS

Additional funds will focus on improved and increased capabilities for all of Norway's armed forces, including the Coast Guard. Russian offensive exercises off Norway's coast have demonstrated that Russian forces over the past few years are increasingly well-funded and better trained, said Barth-Eide. However, Norway did not view the exercises as much of a threat, but rather as Russia's attempt to emerge as the dominant Arctic power by default. If other Arctic nations and Europe fail to engage pro-actively to counter Russia's influence, particularly its soft power influence, he warned, Russia will set the Arctic agenda.
- #09OSLO635, 15th of October 2009

Update: AP / Denmark preparing to stake claim to North Pole and Information / Denmark wants to claim the North Pole.

According to a leaked draft of the official strategy for the Arctic, Denmark will make an official claim for the territorial rights for the North Pole before the UN deadline in 2014. This approach marks a new direction for its Arctic strategy: From now on, human needs must go before the needs of the environment

Just read "Climate Conflict" by Jeffrey Mazo

The book Climate conflict - How global warming threatens security and what to do about it by Jeffrey Mazo of The International Institute For Strategic Studies is a concise discussion of historical, current and future geopolitics as influenced by climate change. It is kind of an academic version of the more popularizing Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer (reviewed here at Ecowar December 2010). And highly recommended to anyone interested in geopolitics, security issues or climate change.


The bad part is it has an introductory chapter on climate change and one about Darfur - both topics that I for one is getting tired of paying for. The good par is that even these chapters are really good. Short, to the point and comprehensive enough to contain details I hadn't heard of before.


In Mazo's own words, the book is "intended to illustrate the social and security consequences of climate change that will manifest over the next two to three decades regardless of the policies adopted in the next few years to mitigate more severe impacts over the long term. [...] it assumes a best-case scenario in terms of international policy responses to climate change [...]". Assuming a best-case scenario for politics? Did you ever read anything that naive? But as he says: It doesn't matter for the near future anyway.

The historical chapter is almost like a summary of Jared Diamond's Collapse. The final two chapters are a bit unclear in disposition but solid in content. The short-short-short version of the conclusion is:

"It is clear that unmitigated climate change will be nothing less than disastrous for the global community."

But scholarly as it is it qualifies its findings:

"Just as no specific weather event can be definitively attributed to climate change because of normal variation within a complex system, specific social or political developments cannot be definitively attributed to climate or other environmental factors."

It doesn't really deal a lot with bad policy scenarios, local conflicts, resource conflicts related to energy choices and many other issues. But the core issues it sets out to explore it dutifully maps with a bullshit factor of zero. Buy it and read it.

More of the same. And then...

How better lose reader than with a headline like that? (I know: a going nowhere leading text like this one.) Well, while writing up this blog in report format a couple of links have piled up.

First: more of the two obvious ones

From Population growth, climate change raising odds of war over water, forum hears:

"Water resources in themselves have rarely been the sole source of conflict or war. Unfortunately, our global water situation is changing rapidly and may soon no longer resemble anything that has existed on earth before. The tensions and conflicts over water of the kind that have typically occurred in the past will soon represent only one of many emerging explosive hydro-climatic issues that are likely to bring sovereign nations into internal and external discord that could erupt in violence. Humanity's numbers appear to be the greatest threat to water security globally. We have created a hydroclimatic bomb, and that bomb has started to tick. But we don't know how big the bomb is or where or when it will go off."
- Bob Sandford, Canadian water-policy expert

Random fact from the article: 25% of water conflicts of the last five millennium occurred with the last decade.

Next: sweeping ones own doorstep, shipping off the dirt

Center for American Progress asks the hard question in Coal-Fired Conflict: Enabling Exports Clouds Environmental and Economic Goals:

if [a country] is serious about combating the perils of climate change through economic and environmental transformation, should [that country] really be encouraging the export of [home extracted] coal to [foreign] markets?

While it may improve carbon credit accounting exported coal will pollute the same atmosphere exactly as much and even more due to the transportation.

"Coal is a dead man walkin'. Banks won't finance them. Insurance companies won't insure them. The EPA is coming after them...and the economics to make it clean don't work."
- Kevin Parker, Deutsche Bank

If the United States is to assume a position of world leadership in the effort to reduce global warming pollution, and if it is to commit more fully to a clean energy future with its attendant economic, health, and environmental benefits, it makes little sense for policymakers to facilitate significant increases in coal exports.

Finally: Environmental laws to trigger trade wars

If you can stomach it, read Reuters / Canada warns EU of trade conflict over oil sands. Truly depressing testimony to the obstacles environmentalism and common sense is facing.

According to a leaked letter from the Canadian government to the EU, a proposed European tax on dirty energy is in their eyes an "unnecessary barrier". The fact that tar sand oils are one of the most polluting energy resources available is to the Canadians "not supported by the science".

The Canadians are already suing Europe at World Trade Organization level on issues like hormone-treated beef, genetically modified foods, seal products and more - their free trade "right" to spam the world with tar sand oil would simply add another to the list. Shame on Canada.

Extra, extra: The interesting one!

Check out this interesting discussion at reddit / The storms that hit the US this weekend killed more American civilians in a single day than terrorists have in the last 9 years.

Most comments are either simply about the tornadoes, about surviving a tornado, about possible lack of warning systems in the US... and then some are quite funny and on our topic:

Hair dryers have killed more American civilians than terrorists have in the last 9 years, what's your point?
- eeepc

His point is that we need to start a WAR ON TORNADOES!
- Xsophos

Tornados hate us for our freedoms!!!!
- javo93

They are a threat to national security!
- TheWhyGuy

They did target 3 military bases and yet no response yet???
- enthreeoh