Why is there debate about climate-conflict connections, and where do you stand?Cullen Hendrix: I am convinced that climate extremes and certain rapid-onset natural disasters are robustly linked to conflict outcomes. These impacts can be marginal, affecting the propensity of individuals to participate in violence, or they can be massive, such as with longer-term climate conditions influencing the rise and fall of empires. However, I am not convinced these effects are uniform across space, time, and different political and economic systems.The debate is heated due to the baggage of geographic determinism. Human geographers, in particular, have been very sceptical of climate-conflict links because the discourse deprives humans of agency. There is some truth to that: saying the Syrian Civil War was caused by climate change absolves the Assad of their role in precipitating the conflict via exclusionary rule and repressive responses to discontent. Indeed, humans experience climate phenomena in specific economic, social and political contexts, and understanding these contexts is key to understanding the diversity of conflict responses to similar climate shocks.Vally Koubi: The climate-conflict debate emerged because policymakers, journalists and academics were keen to link conflicts (for example the Darfur war) to drought. In reality, this relationship is almost always more complex and context specific. For instance, although extreme climate events, climate variability and climate change have affected conflict, their direct impacts have been small compared to other drivers, including socioeconomic development, government strength, inequalities, and a history of conflict 1 . However, when climate affects these other drivers, conflict is more likely, moderated by contextual factors such as economic development and political institutions 2, 3 . Therefore, my position is that climate change does not directly cause conflict, but indirectly increases conflict risk by exacerbating existing social, economic and environmental factors, hence acting as a 'threat multiplier'.Jan Selby: The climate-conflict debate arose largely as a by-product of politics, triggered by the release of several scenario reports on the security implications of climate change under the George W. Bush presidency. These reports were extremely light on evidence, their central purpose being neither scientific nor motivated by a concern with conflict, but instead about dramatizing the importance of climate change to US domestic and policy audiences. The hope was that depicting climate change as a vital 'national security' issue might help build momentum for swifter action on emissions. Only in the wake of this politics did a substantial body of actual research on the subject emerge. However, evidence from this research, is generally weak, and contradictory, and in some cases, non-existent, as for instance on the influence of climate change in the Lake Chad crisis. Yet, despite this 'evidence', claims about climate-conflict connections still go all the way up ...