180,000 more rapes because of global warming

Cuz it will be warmer, see?

Ranson acknowledges that those results represent a relatively small jump in the overall level of crime—a 2.2 percent increase in murder and a 3.1 percent increase in rape, for instance. Still, says John Roman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, those numbers add up to “a lot of victims” over the course of the century.

The more you draw away from anthropogenic global warming hysteria, the more frantic the appeals to the faithful appear. The five stages of grief are relevant here. If you google the “five stages of grief/global warming” you get scores of articles telling us that skeptics are all in the first stage of denial. Quite the contrary: we await the full and complete apologies of the catastrophists when they awaken from their shrill and increasingly desperate avoidance of the facts. The earth is not even warming, apparently. Regardless, we humans are not causing anything significant in the way of global warming.The earth and us in it are subject to forces on a cosmic scale which nullify our effects on the planet. Anthropogenic global warming is the last stand of man’s bloated sense of self importance. It is the successor to Ptolemaic cosmology.

If the same energy and money were applied to maintaining fish stocks, cleaning up ocean pollution, or converting Chinese industry to natural gas from bituminous coal, as is now applied to vapid hysteria about man-caused global warming, the world would be a better place.

Alas, I waste my breath. Communism fell, so will AGW.

 

top10_pause_explanations

Bookmark and Share
anon

yes, yes, the murder rape link is ridiculous.

But anthropogenic climate change is real. It’s the consensus in fact. You can link it Ptolemeic cosmology all you like but the number of peer-reviewed papers rejecting it are ‘vanishingly small’ and shrinking.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

There are a lot of blogs making a lot of noise about how it’s junk science, but there’s no actual science that rejects it.

anon

Here’s a great couple paragraphs from the conclusion:

“The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Contributing to this ‘consensus gap’ are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact)’. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is ‘…on the point of collapse’ (Oddie 2012) while ‘…the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year’ (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

Dalwhinnie

By the way, thanks for the intelligent response. Just because I don’t believe a word of it does not make me less grateful for a well-reasoned disputant. I am serenely confident that AGW, with the emphasis on the “A” is the cholesterol of our time: deeply believed, generously supported by governments, disastrous in policy implications, religious in origin and nature, and will be perceived as a ridiculous fetish of computer modelling a century from now.

MaryLS

Anon — that paper attempting to quantify a consensus us crap. Most of the papers do not even deal directly with the question, but rather with peripheral issues. Secondly the tally reflectspost peer review censorship. If you did not support AGW,for the most part you did not get published. Peer review is not an unbiased process.

dalwhinnie

As to anthropogenic global warming – as opposed to global warming by natural means – I echo the words of General Buck Turgidson in Doctor Strangelove: “Mr. President, I smell a commie rat!”

When hundreds of German scientists denounced Einstein in the Nazi period, Einstein replied “If I were wrong, only one would have sufficed.” There was a consensus around phlogiston as the explanation of combustion before Priestly and Lavoisier. There was a consensus that we were going to have to adapt to the existence of Communism as a permanent part of the European state system in the 1970s.

All went “poof”. So will anthropogenic global warming, the theory that we are warming the planet, and nothing else is a significant force.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *