Modeling and Data Choices Sway Conclusions about Climate-Conflict Links
Publisher: PNAS, February 11
Author(s): John O’Laughlin, Andrew Linke, and Drank Witmer
Date: 2014
Topics: Climate Change, Conflict Causes, Conflict Prevention
In an era of growing concern about the human impacts of climate change, the academic and policy communities are paying increasing attention to the possible link between weather anomalies and violent conflict. Early research papers on the topic by Burke et al and the reanalysis and extension of their work by Buhaug claim contradictory findings, the first showing a link between increased temperatures and war, and the second—using an expanded dataset and different models—calling these results into question. Hsiang and Meng reexamine the data and argue that the original Burke et al. conclusions are robust and remain a “benchmark” for future studies of the climate–conflict relationship.Hsiang and Meng compare the coefficient estimates and SEs of Buhaug’s model to the Burke et al. findings (using Seemingly Unrelated Regression after standardizing the dependent variable), arguing that this was the comparison that Buhaug ought to have made rather than comparison with the hypothesis that higher temperature has no effect upon war. For Hsiang and Meng, the Burke et al. findings were published first and therefore represent a standard against which all subsequent research must be compared. However, we believe that the Burke et al. finding is not a “benchmark” in the sense that it is the scientific truth or an objective reality because disciplinary-related modeling decisions, data availability and choices, and coding rules are critical in deriving robust conclusions about temperature and conflict.