Discussion:
Thermogeddon started last weekend
(too old to reply)
DESMODUS
2017-08-31 13:22:53 UTC
Permalink
As predicted by the DESMODUS team over the last few years two major events signal the start of Thermogeddon ..

The first is the monster storm afflicting parts of the US –this was predicted last year by meteorologists at the UK Met Office as being akin to Jupiter’s giant red spot caused by the high sea temperatures .In this scenario these storms could combine into a continuous mega storm that occupies the N. Hemisphere for much of the year .

The other event was a toxic gas cloud that afflicted part of the South coast of England ,comprising a mixture of Metasulphonic acid ,SO2 and possibly H2S (we were too scared to go in it in case it was ) this was caused by the exuinification of part of the sea water column due to excess CO2 acidity killing off algae and picroplankton which decayed rapidly on the sea floor . We have been saying this will happen for the last 10 years if the CO2 level continues to rise until eventually (actually not that eventually!) our oxygen atmosphere will disappear .DESMODUS (we are not quite sure what the point of saying these things is as significant proportion of the population refuses to accept the scientific evidence and thinks they are going to continue driving to shopping mall in their monster SUV`s !)
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-31 14:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by DESMODUS
As predicted by the DESMODUS team over the last few years two major
events signal the start of Thermogeddon ..
The first is the monster storm afflicting parts of the US –this was
predicted last year by meteorologists at the UK Met Office as being akin
to Jupiter’s giant red spot caused by the high sea temperatures .In
this scenario these storms could combine into a continuous mega storm
that occupies the N. Hemisphere for much of the year .
The other event was a toxic gas cloud that afflicted part of the South
coast of England ,comprising a mixture of Metasulphonic acid ,SO2 and
possibly H2S (we were too scared to go in it in case it was ) this was
caused by the exuinification of part of the sea water column due to
excess CO2 acidity killing off algae and picroplankton which decayed
rapidly on the sea floor . We have been saying this will happen for the
last 10 years if the CO2 level continues to rise until eventually
(actually not that eventually!) our oxygen atmosphere will disappear
.DESMODUS (we are not quite sure what the point of saying these things
is as significant proportion of the population refuses to accept the
scientific evidence and thinks they are going to continue driving to
shopping mall in their monster SUV`s !)
http://tintin.wikia.com/wiki/Philippulus_the_Prophet

292 hurricanes recorded since 1851 (1.75 each year on average).
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E23.html
Zombie Apocalypse
2017-08-31 16:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for your information professor
AlleyCat
2017-09-01 01:00:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:22:53 -0700 (PDT), DESMODUS says...
Post by DESMODUS
The first is the monster storm afflicting parts of the US
"Monster" storm?

LOL

It was a run-of-the-mill Cat.4 hurricane that lost all it's "power" when
it hit land, then got stalled by high pressure areas COVERING the nation.

Loading Image...

That caused the rain, NOT the hurricane itself. The Gulf carries a lot of
humidity this time of year... nothing new... I've been going through shit
like this for 50 years.
Orel Smith
2017-09-04 01:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Most of them are neo-Nazis who should have been shot
years-ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/opinion/sunday/hurricane-
harvey-climate-change.html
*We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?*
by Nicholas Kristof
Sept. 2, 2017
Imagine that after the 9/11 attacks, the conversation had
been limited to the tragedy in Lower Manhattan, the heroism
of rescuers and the high heels of the visiting first lady
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/fashion/melania-trump-
hurricane-harvey-heels-texas.html] — without addressing the
risks of future terrorism.
That’s how we have viewed Hurricane Harvey in Houston, as a
gripping human drama but without adequate discussion of how
climate change increases risks of such cataclysms. We can’t
have an intelligent conversation about Harvey without also
discussing climate change.
That’s awkward for a president who has tweeted climate change
skepticism more than 100 times
[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-
climate-agreement], even suggesting that climate change is a
Chinese hoax
[https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/26589529219124838
5
? lang=en], and who has announced he will pull the U.S. out
of the Paris climate accord. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s
head of the Environmental Protection Agency, says it’s
“misplaced” to talk about Harvey and climate change
[http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pruitt-opportunistic-
misplaced-hurricane-harvey-climate-change].
Really? To me, avoiding the topic is like a group of frogs
sitting in a beaker, fretting about the growing warmth of the
water but neglecting to jump out. Climate scientists are in
agreement that there are at least two ways climate change is
making hurricanes worse.
First, hurricanes arise from warm waters, and the Gulf of
Mexico has warmed by two to four degrees Fahrenheit over the
long-term average. The result is more intense storms.
“There is a general consensus that the frequency of high-
category (3, 4 and 5) hurricanes should increase as the
climate warms,” Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at M.I.T.,
tells me. Likewise, three experts examined the data over 30
years and concluded that Atlantic tropical cyclones are
getting stronger
[https://search.proquest.com/openview/848e9cbe4aa5f7cb50467fd
8
3 2e9dc09/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40569].
Second, as the air warms, it holds more water vapor, so the
storms dump more rain. That’s why there’s a big increase in
heavy downpours (“extreme precipitation events”). Nine of the
top 10 years for heavy downpours in the U.S. have occurred
since 1990 [https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-
change-indicators-heavy-precipitation].
“Climate change played a role in intensifying the winds and
rainfall associated with Hurricane Harvey,” says Charles
Greene, a climate scientist at Cornell. He notes that there’s
also a third way, not yet proven, in which climate change may
be implicated: As Arctic sea ice is lost, wind systems can
meander and create blockages — like those that locked Harvey
in place over Houston. It was this stalling that led Harvey
to be so destructive.
there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to
the idea of human-caused climate change.
Last year was the third in a row to set a record for highest
global average surface temperature, according to NASA
[https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-
warmest-year-on-record-globally]. The 10 years of greatest
loss of sea ice are all in the last decade
[http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-
ice-graph/]. And poor Houston has suffered three “500-year
floods” in the last three years.
Remember also that we in the rich world are the lucky ones.
We lose homes to climate change, but in much of the world
families lose something far more precious: their babies.
Climate change increases risks of war, instability, disease
and hunger in vulnerable parts of the globe, and I was seared
while reporting in Madagascar about children starving
apparently as a consequence of climate change
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/sunday/as-donald-
trump-denies-climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it.html].
An obvious first step is to embrace the Paris climate accord.
A second step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps
through a carbon tax to pay for tax cuts or disaster relief.
We also must adapt to a new normal — and that’s something
Democratic and Republican politicians alike are afraid to do.
We keep building in vulnerable coastal areas and on flood
plains, pretty much daring Mother Nature to whack us.
We even subsidize such dares through the dysfunctional
National Flood Insurance Program
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/opinion/flood-insurance-
program-.html]. This offers underpriced insurance,
encouraging people to live in low-lying areas — compounded by
flood maps that are old and unreliable. One Mississippi home
flooded 34 times in 32 years [http://www.pewtrusts.org/
~/media/assets/2016/10/repeatedly_flooded_properties_cost_bil
l
i ons.pdf?la=en], resulting in payouts worth almost 10 times
what the home was worth.
The truth is that what happened in Houston was not only
predictable, it was actually predicted. Last year,
'ProPublica' and 'The Texas Tribune' published a devastating
article about Houston as a “sitting duck for the next big
hurricane” and warned that Texas was unprepared
[https://projects.propublica.org/houston/].
In other domains, we constantly manage risks that are
uncertain. We address a threat from the Islamic State or
North Korea even when it’s complicated and hard to assess. So
why can’t our leaders be as alert to climate risks that in
the long run may be far more destructive?
Sure, definitively linking any one storm to climate change is
difficult. Likewise, when a particular person contracts lung
cancer, it may be impossible to prove that smoking was the
cause that time. But it’d be absurd for America to discuss
the challenge of lung cancer only through the prism of
suffering patients and heroic doctors (and the high heels of
the visitors in the cancer ward!) without also considering
tobacco policy.
A week and a half ago, Republicans and Democrats traveled to
see the solar eclipse and gazed upward at the appointed hour
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/opinion/watching-the-
eclipse-in-oregon.html], because they believed scientific
predictions about what would unfold. Why can’t we all
similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking
of our only planet?
you tell us, you're the sister fucker
Orel Smith
2017-09-04 03:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Most of them are neo-Nazis who should have been shot
years-ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/opinion/sunday/hurricane-
harvey-climate-change.html
*We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?*
by Nicholas Kristof
Sept. 2, 2017
Imagine that after the 9/11 attacks, the conversation had
been limited to the tragedy in Lower Manhattan, the heroism
of rescuers and the high heels of the visiting first lady
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/fashion/melania-trump-
hurricane-harvey-heels-texas.html] — without addressing the
risks of future terrorism.
That’s how we have viewed Hurricane Harvey in Houston, as a
gripping human drama but without adequate discussion of how
climate change increases risks of such cataclysms. We can’t
have an intelligent conversation about Harvey without also
discussing climate change.
That’s awkward for a president who has tweeted climate change
skepticism more than 100 times
[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-
climate-agreement], even suggesting that climate change is a
Chinese hoax
[https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/26589529219124838
5
? lang=en], and who has announced he will pull the U.S. out
of the Paris climate accord. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s
head of the Environmental Protection Agency, says it’s
“misplaced” to talk about Harvey and climate change
[http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pruitt-opportunistic-
misplaced-hurricane-harvey-climate-change].
Really? To me, avoiding the topic is like a group of frogs
sitting in a beaker, fretting about the growing warmth of the
water but neglecting to jump out. Climate scientists are in
agreement that there are at least two ways climate change is
making hurricanes worse.
First, hurricanes arise from warm waters, and the Gulf of
Mexico has warmed by two to four degrees Fahrenheit over the
long-term average. The result is more intense storms.
“There is a general consensus that the frequency of high-
category (3, 4 and 5) hurricanes should increase as the
climate warms,” Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at M.I.T.,
tells me. Likewise, three experts examined the data over 30
years and concluded that Atlantic tropical cyclones are
getting stronger
[https://search.proquest.com/openview/848e9cbe4aa5f7cb50467fd
8
3 2e9dc09/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40569].
Second, as the air warms, it holds more water vapor, so the
storms dump more rain. That’s why there’s a big increase in
heavy downpours (“extreme precipitation events”). Nine of the
top 10 years for heavy downpours in the U.S. have occurred
since 1990 [https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-
change-indicators-heavy-precipitation].
“Climate change played a role in intensifying the winds and
rainfall associated with Hurricane Harvey,” says Charles
Greene, a climate scientist at Cornell. He notes that there’s
also a third way, not yet proven, in which climate change may
be implicated: As Arctic sea ice is lost, wind systems can
meander and create blockages — like those that locked Harvey
in place over Houston. It was this stalling that led Harvey
to be so destructive.
there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to
the idea of human-caused climate change.
Last year was the third in a row to set a record for highest
global average surface temperature, according to NASA
[https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-
warmest-year-on-record-globally]. The 10 years of greatest
loss of sea ice are all in the last decade
[http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-
ice-graph/]. And poor Houston has suffered three “500-year
floods” in the last three years.
Remember also that we in the rich world are the lucky ones.
We lose homes to climate change, but in much of the world
families lose something far more precious: their babies.
Climate change increases risks of war, instability, disease
and hunger in vulnerable parts of the globe, and I was seared
while reporting in Madagascar about children starving
apparently as a consequence of climate change
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/sunday/as-donald-
trump-denies-climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it.html].
An obvious first step is to embrace the Paris climate accord.
A second step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps
through a carbon tax to pay for tax cuts or disaster relief.
We also must adapt to a new normal — and that’s something
Democratic and Republican politicians alike are afraid to do.
We keep building in vulnerable coastal areas and on flood
plains, pretty much daring Mother Nature to whack us.
We even subsidize such dares through the dysfunctional
National Flood Insurance Program
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/opinion/flood-insurance-
program-.html]. This offers underpriced insurance,
encouraging people to live in low-lying areas — compounded by
flood maps that are old and unreliable. One Mississippi home
flooded 34 times in 32 years [http://www.pewtrusts.org/
~/media/assets/2016/10/repeatedly_flooded_properties_cost_bil
l
i ons.pdf?la=en], resulting in payouts worth almost 10 times
what the home was worth.
The truth is that what happened in Houston was not only
predictable, it was actually predicted. Last year,
'ProPublica' and 'The Texas Tribune' published a devastating
article about Houston as a “sitting duck for the next big
hurricane” and warned that Texas was unprepared
[https://projects.propublica.org/houston/].
In other domains, we constantly manage risks that are
uncertain. We address a threat from the Islamic State or
North Korea even when it’s complicated and hard to assess. So
why can’t our leaders be as alert to climate risks that in
the long run may be far more destructive?
Sure, definitively linking any one storm to climate change is
difficult. Likewise, when a particular person contracts lung
cancer, it may be impossible to prove that smoking was the
cause that time. But it’d be absurd for America to discuss
the challenge of lung cancer only through the prism of
suffering patients and heroic doctors (and the high heels of
the visitors in the cancer ward!) without also considering
tobacco policy.
A week and a half ago, Republicans and Democrats traveled to
see the solar eclipse and gazed upward at the appointed hour
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/opinion/watching-the-
eclipse-in-oregon.html], because they believed scientific
predictions about what would unfold. Why can’t we all
similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking
of our only planet?
you tell us, you're the sister fucker
Wile E. Coyote
2017-09-07 11:40:59 UTC
Permalink
AlleyCat <***@aohell.com> wrote in news:***@46.165.242.91:
Why is it only the left displays such uncivil behavior?
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
American Thinker
2018-01-07 18:11:18 UTC
Permalink
*We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?*
by Nicholas Kristof
Sept. 2, 2017

Imagine that after the 9/11 attacks, the conversation had been limited to
the tragedy in Lower Manhattan, the heroism of rescuers and the high heels
of the visiting first lady
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/fashion/melania-trump-hurricane-
harvey-heels-texas.html] — without addressing the risks of future
terrorism.

That’s how we have viewed Hurricane Harvey in Houston, as a gripping human
drama but without adequate discussion of how climate change increases
risks of such cataclysms. We can’t have an intelligent conversation about
Harvey without also discussing climate change.

That’s awkward for a president who has tweeted climate change skepticism
more than 100 times [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-climate-
agreement], even suggesting that climate change is a Chinese hoax
[https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en],
and who has announced he will pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate
accord. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s head of the Environmental
Protection Agency, says it’s “misplaced” to talk about Harvey and climate
change [http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pruitt-opportunistic-
misplaced-hurricane-harvey-climate-change].

Really? To me, avoiding the topic is like a group of frogs sitting in a
beaker, fretting about the growing warmth of the water but neglecting to
jump out. Climate scientists are in agreement that there are at least two
ways climate change is making hurricanes worse.

First, hurricanes arise from warm waters, and the Gulf of Mexico has
warmed by two to four degrees Fahrenheit over the long-term average. The
result is more intense storms.

“There is a general consensus that the frequency of high-category (3, 4
and 5) hurricanes should increase as the climate warms,” Kerry Emanuel, a
hurricane expert at M.I.T., tells me. Likewise, three experts examined the
data over 30 years and concluded that Atlantic tropical cyclones are
getting stronger
[https://search.proquest.com/openview/848e9cbe4aa5f7cb50467fd832e9dc09/1?
pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40569].

Second, as the air warms, it holds more water vapor, so the storms dump
more rain. That’s why there’s a big increase in heavy downpours (“extreme
precipitation events”). Nine of the top 10 years for heavy downpours in
the U.S. have occurred since 1990 [https://www.epa.gov/climate-
indicators/climate-change-indicators-heavy-precipitation].

“Climate change played a role in intensifying the winds and rainfall
associated with Hurricane Harvey,” says Charles Greene, a climate
scientist at Cornell. He notes that there’s also a third way, not yet
proven, in which climate change may be implicated: As Arctic sea ice is
lost, wind systems can meander and create blockages — like those that
locked Harvey in place over Houston. It was this stalling that led Harvey
to be so destructive.

there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to the idea of
human-caused climate change.

Last year was the third in a row to set a record for highest global
average surface temperature, according to NASA
[https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-
on-record-globally]. The 10 years of greatest loss of sea ice are all in
the last decade [http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-
sea-ice-graph/]. And poor Houston has suffered three “500-year floods” in
the last three years.

Remember also that we in the rich world are the lucky ones. We lose homes
to climate change, but in much of the world families lose something far
more precious: their babies. Climate change increases risks of war,
instability, disease and hunger in vulnerable parts of the globe, and I
was seared while reporting in Madagascar about children starving
apparently as a consequence of climate change
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/sunday/as-donald-trump-denies-
climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it.html].

An obvious first step is to embrace the Paris climate accord. A second
step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps through a carbon tax to
pay for tax cuts or disaster relief.

We also must adapt to a new normal — and that’s something Democratic and
Republican politicians alike are afraid to do. We keep building in
vulnerable coastal areas and on flood plains, pretty much daring Mother
Nature to whack us.

We even subsidize such dares through the dysfunctional National Flood
Insurance Program [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/opinion/flood-
insurance-program-.html]. This offers underpriced insurance, encouraging
people to live in low-lying areas — compounded by flood maps that are old
and unreliable. One Mississippi home flooded 34 times in 32 years
[http://www.pewtrusts.org/
~/media/assets/2016/10/repeatedly_flooded_properties_cost_billions.pdf?
la=en], resulting in payouts worth almost 10 times what the home was
worth.

The truth is that what happened in Houston was not only predictable, it
was actually predicted. Last year, 'ProPublica' and 'The Texas Tribune'
published a devastating article about Houston as a “sitting duck for the
next big hurricane” and warned that Texas was unprepared
[https://projects.propublica.org/houston/].

In other domains, we constantly manage risks that are uncertain. We
address a threat from the Islamic State or North Korea even when it’s
complicated and hard to assess. So why can’t our leaders be as alert to
climate risks that in the long run may be far more destructive?

Sure, definitively linking any one storm to climate change is difficult.
Likewise, when a particular person contracts lung cancer, it may be
impossible to prove that smoking was the cause that time. But it’d be
absurd for America to discuss the challenge of lung cancer only through
the prism of suffering patients and heroic doctors (and the high heels of
the visitors in the cancer ward!) without also considering tobacco policy.

A week and a half ago, Republicans and Democrats traveled to see the solar
eclipse and gazed upward at the appointed hour
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/opinion/watching-the-eclipse-in-
oregon.html], because they believed scientific predictions about what
would unfold. Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions
about our cooking of our only planet?


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/opinion/sunday/hurricane-harvey-
climate-change.html
--
Rightists are spineless and obedient, void of critical thinking and reason
Orel Smith
2018-09-13 03:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Most of them are neo-Nazis who should have been shot
years-ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/opinion/sunday/hurricane-
harvey-climate-change.html
*We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?*
by Nicholas Kristof
Sept. 2, 2017
Imagine that after the 9/11 attacks, the conversation had
been limited to the tragedy in Lower Manhattan, the heroism
of rescuers and the high heels of the visiting first lady
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/fashion/melania-trump-
hurricane-harvey-heels-texas.html] — without addressing the
risks of future terrorism.
That’s how we have viewed Hurricane Harvey in Houston, as a
gripping human drama but without adequate discussion of how
climate change increases risks of such cataclysms. We can’t
have an intelligent conversation about Harvey without also
discussing climate change.
That’s awkward for a president who has tweeted climate change
skepticism more than 100 times
[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-
climate-agreement], even suggesting that climate change is a
Chinese hoax
[https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/26589529219124838
5
? lang=en], and who has announced he will pull the U.S. out
of the Paris climate accord. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s
head of the Environmental Protection Agency, says it’s
“misplaced” to talk about Harvey and climate change
[http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pruitt-opportunistic-
misplaced-hurricane-harvey-climate-change].
Really? To me, avoiding the topic is like a group of frogs
sitting in a beaker, fretting about the growing warmth of the
water but neglecting to jump out. Climate scientists are in
agreement that there are at least two ways climate change is
making hurricanes worse.
First, hurricanes arise from warm waters, and the Gulf of
Mexico has warmed by two to four degrees Fahrenheit over the
long-term average. The result is more intense storms.
“There is a general consensus that the frequency of high-
category (3, 4 and 5) hurricanes should increase as the
climate warms,” Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at M.I.T.,
tells me. Likewise, three experts examined the data over 30
years and concluded that Atlantic tropical cyclones are
getting stronger
[https://search.proquest.com/openview/848e9cbe4aa5f7cb50467fd
8
3 2e9dc09/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40569].
Second, as the air warms, it holds more water vapor, so the
storms dump more rain. That’s why there’s a big increase in
heavy downpours (“extreme precipitation events”). Nine of the
top 10 years for heavy downpours in the U.S. have occurred
since 1990 [https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-
change-indicators-heavy-precipitation].
“Climate change played a role in intensifying the winds and
rainfall associated with Hurricane Harvey,” says Charles
Greene, a climate scientist at Cornell. He notes that there’s
also a third way, not yet proven, in which climate change may
be implicated: As Arctic sea ice is lost, wind systems can
meander and create blockages — like those that locked Harvey
in place over Houston. It was this stalling that led Harvey
to be so destructive.
there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to
the idea of human-caused climate change.
Last year was the third in a row to set a record for highest
global average surface temperature, according to NASA
[https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-
warmest-year-on-record-globally]. The 10 years of greatest
loss of sea ice are all in the last decade
[http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-
ice-graph/]. And poor Houston has suffered three “500-year
floods” in the last three years.
Remember also that we in the rich world are the lucky ones.
We lose homes to climate change, but in much of the world
families lose something far more precious: their babies.
Climate change increases risks of war, instability, disease
and hunger in vulnerable parts of the globe, and I was seared
while reporting in Madagascar about children starving
apparently as a consequence of climate change
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/sunday/as-donald-
trump-denies-climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it.html].
An obvious first step is to embrace the Paris climate accord.
A second step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps
through a carbon tax to pay for tax cuts or disaster relief.
We also must adapt to a new normal — and that’s something
Democratic and Republican politicians alike are afraid to do.
We keep building in vulnerable coastal areas and on flood
plains, pretty much daring Mother Nature to whack us.
We even subsidize such dares through the dysfunctional
National Flood Insurance Program
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/opinion/flood-insurance-
program-.html]. This offers underpriced insurance,
encouraging people to live in low-lying areas — compounded by
flood maps that are old and unreliable. One Mississippi home
flooded 34 times in 32 years [http://www.pewtrusts.org/
~/media/assets/2016/10/repeatedly_flooded_properties_cost_bil
l
i ons.pdf?la=en], resulting in payouts worth almost 10 times
what the home was worth.
The truth is that what happened in Houston was not only
predictable, it was actually predicted. Last year,
'ProPublica' and 'The Texas Tribune' published a devastating
article about Houston as a “sitting duck for the next big
hurricane” and warned that Texas was unprepared
[https://projects.propublica.org/houston/].
In other domains, we constantly manage risks that are
uncertain. We address a threat from the Islamic State or
North Korea even when it’s complicated and hard to assess. So
why can’t our leaders be as alert to climate risks that in
the long run may be far more destructive?
Sure, definitively linking any one storm to climate change is
difficult. Likewise, when a particular person contracts lung
cancer, it may be impossible to prove that smoking was the
cause that time. But it’d be absurd for America to discuss
the challenge of lung cancer only through the prism of
suffering patients and heroic doctors (and the high heels of
the visitors in the cancer ward!) without also considering
tobacco policy.
A week and a half ago, Republicans and Democrats traveled to
see the solar eclipse and gazed upward at the appointed hour
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/opinion/watching-the-
eclipse-in-oregon.html], because they believed scientific
predictions about what would unfold. Why can’t we all
similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking
of our only planet?
you tell us, you're the sister fucker
Orel Smith
2018-09-13 03:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Most of them are neo-Nazis who should have been shot
years-ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/opinion/sunday/hurricane-
harvey-climate-change.html
*We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?*
by Nicholas Kristof
Sept. 2, 2017
Imagine that after the 9/11 attacks, the conversation had
been limited to the tragedy in Lower Manhattan, the heroism
of rescuers and the high heels of the visiting first lady
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/fashion/melania-trump-
hurricane-harvey-heels-texas.html] — without addressing the
risks of future terrorism.
That’s how we have viewed Hurricane Harvey in Houston, as a
gripping human drama but without adequate discussion of how
climate change increases risks of such cataclysms. We can’t
have an intelligent conversation about Harvey without also
discussing climate change.
That’s awkward for a president who has tweeted climate change
skepticism more than 100 times
[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-
climate-agreement], even suggesting that climate change is a
Chinese hoax
[https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/26589529219124838
5
? lang=en], and who has announced he will pull the U.S. out
of the Paris climate accord. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s
head of the Environmental Protection Agency, says it’s
“misplaced” to talk about Harvey and climate change
[http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pruitt-opportunistic-
misplaced-hurricane-harvey-climate-change].
Really? To me, avoiding the topic is like a group of frogs
sitting in a beaker, fretting about the growing warmth of the
water but neglecting to jump out. Climate scientists are in
agreement that there are at least two ways climate change is
making hurricanes worse.
First, hurricanes arise from warm waters, and the Gulf of
Mexico has warmed by two to four degrees Fahrenheit over the
long-term average. The result is more intense storms.
“There is a general consensus that the frequency of high-
category (3, 4 and 5) hurricanes should increase as the
climate warms,” Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at M.I.T.,
tells me. Likewise, three experts examined the data over 30
years and concluded that Atlantic tropical cyclones are
getting stronger
[https://search.proquest.com/openview/848e9cbe4aa5f7cb50467fd
8
3 2e9dc09/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40569].
Second, as the air warms, it holds more water vapor, so the
storms dump more rain. That’s why there’s a big increase in
heavy downpours (“extreme precipitation events”). Nine of the
top 10 years for heavy downpours in the U.S. have occurred
since 1990 [https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-
change-indicators-heavy-precipitation].
“Climate change played a role in intensifying the winds and
rainfall associated with Hurricane Harvey,” says Charles
Greene, a climate scientist at Cornell. He notes that there’s
also a third way, not yet proven, in which climate change may
be implicated: As Arctic sea ice is lost, wind systems can
meander and create blockages — like those that locked Harvey
in place over Houston. It was this stalling that led Harvey
to be so destructive.
there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to
the idea of human-caused climate change.
Last year was the third in a row to set a record for highest
global average surface temperature, according to NASA
[https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-
warmest-year-on-record-globally]. The 10 years of greatest
loss of sea ice are all in the last decade
[http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-
ice-graph/]. And poor Houston has suffered three “500-year
floods” in the last three years.
Remember also that we in the rich world are the lucky ones.
We lose homes to climate change, but in much of the world
families lose something far more precious: their babies.
Climate change increases risks of war, instability, disease
and hunger in vulnerable parts of the globe, and I was seared
while reporting in Madagascar about children starving
apparently as a consequence of climate change
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/sunday/as-donald-
trump-denies-climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it.html].
An obvious first step is to embrace the Paris climate accord.
A second step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps
through a carbon tax to pay for tax cuts or disaster relief.
We also must adapt to a new normal — and that’s something
Democratic and Republican politicians alike are afraid to do.
We keep building in vulnerable coastal areas and on flood
plains, pretty much daring Mother Nature to whack us.
We even subsidize such dares through the dysfunctional
National Flood Insurance Program
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/opinion/flood-insurance-
program-.html]. This offers underpriced insurance,
encouraging people to live in low-lying areas — compounded by
flood maps that are old and unreliable. One Mississippi home
flooded 34 times in 32 years [http://www.pewtrusts.org/
~/media/assets/2016/10/repeatedly_flooded_properties_cost_bil
l
i ons.pdf?la=en], resulting in payouts worth almost 10 times
what the home was worth.
The truth is that what happened in Houston was not only
predictable, it was actually predicted. Last year,
'ProPublica' and 'The Texas Tribune' published a devastating
article about Houston as a “sitting duck for the next big
hurricane” and warned that Texas was unprepared
[https://projects.propublica.org/houston/].
In other domains, we constantly manage risks that are
uncertain. We address a threat from the Islamic State or
North Korea even when it’s complicated and hard to assess. So
why can’t our leaders be as alert to climate risks that in
the long run may be far more destructive?
Sure, definitively linking any one storm to climate change is
difficult. Likewise, when a particular person contracts lung
cancer, it may be impossible to prove that smoking was the
cause that time. But it’d be absurd for America to discuss
the challenge of lung cancer only through the prism of
suffering patients and heroic doctors (and the high heels of
the visitors in the cancer ward!) without also considering
tobacco policy.
A week and a half ago, Republicans and Democrats traveled to
see the solar eclipse and gazed upward at the appointed hour
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/opinion/watching-the-
eclipse-in-oregon.html], because they believed scientific
predictions about what would unfold. Why can’t we all
similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking
of our only planet?
you tell us, you're the sister fucker

Loading...