Uncomfortable post-Sandy question

[Dobson73]

With the greatest respect to the people in the north east of the US who have suffered/are suffering such incredible hardships, I have one question.

Is it not time to start calling your politicians to get them thinking about a thing called Global warming? Or as a resident of the nation who is one of the largest contributors to Global warming, is that too uncomfortable?

Again, my sympathies to the residents who've been affected. I can't begin to imagine your pain. But for all our sakes, please start asking your politicians what they're going to do to address this very real issue.

[Jack Springer]

Understanding weather and climate and the difference between the two will lead you to a new understanding of what both mean to each other.

[HenryReardon]

It's not an uncomfortable question, but it is a remarkably foollish one, given that global warming doesn't exist.

We are in a weather cycle similar to that of 1950. The Pacific Ocean is cooler, the Atlantic Ocean is warmer, and predictable things happen.

[EastMed]

With the greatest respect to the people in the north east of the US who have suffered/are suffering such incredible hardships, I have one question.

Is it not time to start calling your politicians to get them thinking about a thing called Global warming? Or as a resident of the nation who is one of the largest contributors to Global warming, is that too uncomfortable?

Again, my sympathies to the residents who've been affected. I can't begin to imagine your pain. But for all our sakes, please start asking your politicians what they're going to do to address this very real issue.

Sadly it's become an issue "that dare not speak its name".

What's more, an event like Sandy may result in public infrastructure being sold to vulture capitalists.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/...investors.html

[T-Rexx]

Understanding weather and climate and the difference between the two will lead you to a new understanding of what both mean to each other.

It's not an uncomfortable question, but it is a remarkably foollish one, given that global warming doesn't exist.

We are in a weather cycle similar to that of 1950. The Pacific Ocean is cooler, the Atlantic Ocean is warmer, and predictable things happen.

It's just lucky that the Republican Party understands weather better than the world's climate scientists, and can help the US avoid the tragedy of green energy.

[TX-Beau]

I don't think the global warming denial on the right is recent at all. Exxon back in the day was paying out a lot of money to fund the deniers. But then in the middle of the last decade Exxon and most of the oil industry about faced because the scientific data became too overwhelming and the only "scientists" willing to deny were seriously whack and people the oil companies didn't want anything to do with.

It's to be noted that Exxon was acting in coalition with other oil companies that were lobbying the right to deny or downplay the effects of man made emissions on the environment.

These days even the oil industry isn't denying, in fact a lot of them are trying to pretend they never were deniers and have started programs to study and mitigate the effects of fossil fuel emissions in the environment.

As far as I can tell, the only people still beating this horse are the seriously deluded and willfully blind.

[ibill1]

Republican denial of global warming is a recent phenomenon.

In my lifetime, Glacier National Park will have to change its name.

The only Republicans today who seem to acknowledge global warming is occurring live in Alaska, like Lisa Murkowski. I wonder why...

Because Republicans are by and large, idiots. They care only about themselves and their rich friends and will say and do anything to get elected. Look at Mittens. He has changed his positions whenever it suits him, the man doesn't have any solid convictions on anything. But what really fractures me is gay republicans. I mean really do you just say to yourself, yea, they think I'm a second class citizen, they deny me equal rights, Mittens doesn't even support civil unions if it gives gay couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. His words not mine. Yea, I'll vote for them. You would have to be totally out to lunch to vote for someone who basically hates you.

[White Eagle]

With the greatest respect to the people in the north east of the US who have suffered/are suffering such incredible hardships, I have one question.

Is it not time to start calling your politicians to get them thinking about a thing called Global warming? Or as a resident of the nation who is one of the largest contributors to Global warming, is that too uncomfortable?

Again, my sympathies to the residents who've been affected. I can't begin to imagine your pain. But for all our sakes, please start asking your politicians what they're going to do to address this very real issue.

Don't feel uncomfortable about asking these kinds of questions. One thing you do need to remember is that Henry Reardon who says Global Warming does not exist is in that realm of 1950. The other conservatives on this forum think alike. Nothing is wrong with the weather, wait for it...........
Crikey!

[vulgar_newcomer]

It is not known if global warming is affecting the intensity, frequency, or tracks of hurricanes.

The devastation wrought here was largely due to a rare convergence of meteorological phenomena, and probably not due to a trend in hurricanes striking the northeast United States.

That said, the northeast is, along with the west coast, largely liberal and "onboard" with initiatives to curb androgenic warming of the planet.

Agreed, however one thing is showing up more and more and that is blocking systems in the northern latitudes. It isn't strange to have hurricanes form in the Caribbean in late Oct in fact its normally the second spike of the season after Sept 10th. It isn't strange for a October hurricane to pull north-northeast but the blocking High over Greenland is showing its presence in all sort of climatic events more and more. It is very strange to have a tropical event pull a hard turn as Sandy did still with a tropical core at 38 degrees north its like turning the titanic on a dime to avoid a iceberg. Huge weather systems take time to turn and do it slow, not the case in many weather events the past decade. This is a extreme example.
This blocking system to the north is strange in how strong it has become in the past decade on a increasing scale. Not just for tropical rare events but also drought and change in lower prevailing winds in the northern Hemisphere.
There is a pattern setting up here in various short term weather events from warm weather to record cold and drought with a end to the typical traditional rainy season sea breeze front in Florida, and there are many examples worldwide.

[Benvolio]

Even assuming, as i do not, that humans are causing climate change can we really do anything to stop it? I think not. We could allow beaurocrats to regulate every aspect of our lives and business, as is the liberal plan, but in the end the climate change will continue unabated.

[BostonPirate]

humans create it. This is not debatable outside the political arena. The science is done.

If humans created it, then they first need to stop accelerating it, and next it needs to be reversed. The idea that it's to be ignored because it can't be fixed is the ultimate lazy thinkers excuse.

[Benvolio]

Polution is a result of population and population growth DUH

[T-Rexx]

Even assuming, as i do not, that humans are causing climate change can we really do anything to stop it? I think not. We could allow beaurocrats to regulate every aspect of our lives and business, as is the liberal plan, but in the end the climate change will continue unabated.

In 1994, world production of chlorofluorocarbons was dramatically reduced by international treaty. Chlorofluorocarbons had been used in everything from halon fire extinguishers to asthma medicines to hair spray to every air conditioner in existence. If you had asked me prior to 1994 if it would be possible to get the entire world to agree to eliminate these products, I would have laughed at your naivete.

But, the task was accomplished. And today, the hole in the ozone layer is substantially smaller and closing as a result.

I appreciate that you Republicans never accepted that a hole in the ozone layer exists, that it was caused by CFC use, or that it is now mending because of the actions of the world's scientists and concerned politicians. I trust that you will go on living in your imaginary world without problems, refusing to acknowledge either the impact of mankind on the planet, or our ability to control it. And you will go on refusing to cooperate with the rest of humanity or helping to solve our common problems. Because, for you, people working together for the common good is an evil thing. We got the job done without your help. And we will continue to go on making the world a better place without you.

[Benvolio]

So, T rexx, you will agree we should stop population growth?

[JayHawk]

With the greatest respect to the people in the north east of the US who have suffered/are suffering such incredible hardships, I have one question.

Is it not time to start calling your politicians to get them thinking about a thing called Global warming? Or as a resident of the nation who is one of the largest contributors to Global warming, is that too uncomfortable?

Again, my sympathies to the residents who've been affected. I can't begin to imagine your pain. But for all our sakes, please start asking your politicians what they're going to do to address this very real issue.

Yes it is entirely too uncomfortable a question. We are a split nation where one party still has ideology that comes from 1950. Think about it. One party wants to prevent a women from having an abortion when raped. If they can be so deluded on such a simple question of personal choice how do you think they will be capable of taking on larger issues such as global warming? No. Unfortunately one party is still lined up like horses at the feeding trough of big oil.

[opinterph]

This thread is now designated On-Topic.

Please refer to the opening post for guidance.

[Lostlover]

My thread about the Australian Floods in January 2011 was closed with Jackoroe saying, "They [Australian posters] deserve better."

And this thread is still open, while we're still counting bodies from the hurricane.

Why is one permissible and the other isn't? I wasn't trying to make a cheap political shot at a country when it's barely assessing billions of dollars in damage and finding bodies.

By the way, I don't want this thread closed. But, OP, don't you think it's a little too early for this kind of thread?

[opinterph]

My thread

this thread

Why is one permissible and the other isn't?

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thre...lem-Resolution

[Telstra]

My thread about the Australian Floods in January 2011 was closed with Jackoroe saying, "They [Australian posters] deserve better."

And this thread is still open, while we're still counting bodies from the hurricane.

Why is one permissible and the other isn't? I wasn't trying to make a cheap political shot at a country when it's barely assessing billions of dollars in damage and finding bodies.

By the way, I don't want this thread closed. But, OP, don't you think it's a little too early for this kind of thread?

I think it is too late for this kind of thread.
It should be talked about during the storm is gathering power.

[Lostlover]

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thre...lem-Resolution

I'd be wasting my time and you know it.

[Rolyo85]

I'd be wasting my time and you know it.

Quite true...

[Benvolio]

We were discussing global warming when cut off, so what is the thread about?

[BostonPirate]

nattering nabobs of negativity

I wonder who remembers that quote and the story behind it

[andysayshi]

Lostlover's Australian Flood thread was critical of the Australian rescue effort, of the resolve of Australian's to recover, and of Australia's generosity giving charity. It suggested the UN should step in, and compared the Australian flood disaster to Haiti's post-earthquake humanitarian disaster. It was, in effect, whether he meant it that way or not, a personal attack on Australians, and many reacted with anger as his criticisms were both unfounded and poorly timed.

This thread is simply a political discussion, and has broader implications about global climate responsibility. It's in no way critical of rescuers, of people on the ground in the disaster area, or of the ability of the US to assist their own disaster victims. If anything, it's simply a plea to the US to take heed of current events and the implications of climate politics on both the US and the rest of the world.

The threads are not comparable.

[MassRuss]

nattering nabobs of negativity

I wonder who remembers that quote and the story behind it

Spiro, is that you? I thought you were dead. Not sure, but wasn't it Vietnam or Cambodia?. You know what they say, if you remember the 60s, you weren't there!

[Kulindahr]

nattering nabobs of negativity

I wonder who remembers that quote and the story behind it

Something to do with Nixon?

Though it sounds like the sort of phrase Churchill might have turned, I don't think it goes back to him.

[Lostlover]

106 people dead now. Any more political points to be gained while we're counting bodies?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20192379

[Ninja108]

While I do think climate change is real,I don't think it had anything to do with this storm. Bottom line,sooner or later, the "luck" NJ/NYC had in avoiding a hurricane like this was going to run out. And it finally did.

[frankfrank]

I've still seen no good explanation why it took such an extreme and sharp left turn into New Jersey, entirely contrary to the prevailing direction that weather travels? Of course troppical storms almost always go what we think of as "the wrong way" in the tropics, but usually they head east in some manner, once they have reached 30 degrees or so North Latitude.

[T-Rexx]

I've still seen no good explanation why it took such an extreme and sharp left turn into New Jersey, entirely contrary to the prevailing direction that weather travels? Of course troppical storms almost always go what we think of as "the wrong way" in the tropics, but usually they head east in some manner, once they have reached 30 degrees or so North Latitude.

New Jersey has a lot of gays.

[palemale]

I've still seen no good explanation why it took such an extreme and sharp left turn into New Jersey, entirely contrary to the prevailing direction that weather travels? Of course troppical storms almost always go what we think of as "the wrong way" in the tropics, but usually they head east in some manner, once they have reached 30 degrees or so North Latitude.

There was a blocking high up near Greenland and a winter storm moving from the west, and a dip in the jet stream that steered the storm toward land. As it moved east, the winter storm pulled the hurricane toward land.

I was born and have lived nearly my entire life in NYC or the metro area. There has never being a hurricane this far north this late in the season. I looked at a list of tropical storms affecting NYC on Wikipedia. There are no recorded hurricanes hitting New York or New Jersey in October. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...isted_by_month The Atlantic Ocean is too cold normally for tropical storms of any major intensity this late in the hurricane season.

Back on-topic. Mayor Bloomberg endorsed President Obama because of the storm and largely because he is better on climate change than Romney, who changed his position to appeal to the right-wing nuts in the Republican Party. Governor Cuomo stated emphatically that the storm was the result of climate change. Gov. Christie, as far as I can tell, has been silent about climate change. I will encourage my relatives in New Jersey to start writing to him to encourage him to change his position on it.

Any of our NJ JUB members know what Christie's position on climate change has been?

[palemale]

This is the latest thing I could find out about Gov Christie's stance on climate change. It is real and man-made, but he vetoed a bill to keep NJ in a regional group to control greenhouse gases. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...m-human-activi

[HenryReardon]

Governor Cuomo stated emphatically that the storm was the result of climate change.

And that, of course, makes it so. LOL

[Benvolio]

Even if climate change is man made, it is doubtful that we can do enough to stop it. Liberal are eager to us it to control our lives and business, but having surrendered our freedom it will not stop the client change. Every thing effects the environment, so every thing must be regulated. Why should the rich be allowed bigger houses and bigger autos? Needs to be regulated. Cattle release gases, so regulate diets. Garbage fills land fills, so regulate what people discard. Ration gasoline, electricity, water, heating gas.
The one thing we can and should do is limit population growth. People create emissions by heating, using autos, eating meat, even breathing CO2 and passing gas. They create garbage, sewage, use resources, create urban sprawl etc. so,logically we should severely limit immigration. Alas, no. Immigration trumps everything including the environment.

[TX-Beau]

...Blah blah blah EVIL LIBERALS Blah blah blah EVIL IMMIGRANTS Blah blah blah EVIL LIBERALS Blah blah blah EVIL IMMIGRANTS.....

You're a one note band Ben.

[Benvolio]

...Blah blah blah EVIL LIBERALS Blah blah blah EVIL IMMIGRANTS Blah blah blah EVIL LIBERALS Blah blah blah EVIL IMMIGRANTS.....

You're a one note band Ben.

Evil is your word. I have never said they are evil. What i do say that population growth is pollution growth and emissions growth. Immigrants make every problems worse.

[TX-Beau]

Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.

[Seasoned]

Wow! liberals accept climate change so they can get more control over our lives? Isn't it more likely that rules are proposed more on the basis of something akin to crowd control? It seems likely that the conservative objection is based more on the immediate than the long term. Isn't it all about money and profit for them? Isn't it odd that they speak of their children and grandchildren when it comes to hanging on to inheritance money but not when it comes to physical survival? Isn't it odd when they speak of not wanting government control and then propose legislation that controls individuals on matters of health and marriage? Why don't they just admit it and whine, "it's toooooooo difficult?"

[JayHawk]

Oh seasoned it is not that it is too difficult. It is that it would cut into revenues. That is paramount to a party who would put up a candidate who comes from Bain. Think about it. In Freeport, IL a Bain controlled company is moving the jobs to China DURING the election run of their most infamous colleague. Was it because the company wasn't making a profit? Nope the company made 534 million last year. They want to increase that profit at the expense of American livelihood. But they think know the republican party is so ignorant that they wont flinch as they cancel american jobs during a presidential election where the republican theme is supposed to be jobs. It is surreal.

So no it isn't because it is hard. It isnt really that difficult at all with some will power to make it happen. It is because it cuts the profit of the 1% that control the republican party.

[JayHawk]

106 people dead now. Any more political points to be gained while we're counting bodies?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20192379

I wonder if they will go with natural internment? That way you return to nature where you came from in the first place. Just think this isnt just about climate change either. If we had elections by popular vite then Al Gore would have been President and we could have spent trillions less by not getting into a second war.... so then we could have used those trillions saved to effect greenhouse gas changes.....

its a circle... round and round.

So tell me whats the difference between making a climate change argument when there are dead people and the ba-zillions of arguments using the dead bodies of american and allied and even the local casualties for an anti war stance?

(I know I know you are protesting because you had one cut off for seemingly the same reason) ebb and flow....

So tell me do you like global warming and figure you should make profit before sacrifice for the future? Cuz honestly the billions lost along the east coast may have been less had we started the cleaner energy policies offered by Jimmy Carter thirty years ago.

[xseeker69]

How is it possible to not think global warming is real? The icepack in the arctic ocean is quickly melting more and more each year. Greenland will indeed be green. In Antarctica, huge chunks of the icepack will tend to break off. My own personal look at global warming is in TN. When my mother was a kid, she said there was cold and snow. When I was a kid, it was cold and sometimes snow. Not enough for me, I liked getting out of school. Nowadays, we could get vicious thunderstorms and killer tornados followed by snow or ice storms. ANd this in December or January.

Even if people are not causing the warming, alternative energy sources must be found. Fossil fuels are based on basically fossils. When all the oil, coal, and gas are used up, it's gone. No more. It's better to go NOW to solar, wind, and my favorite nuclear fusion. Of course, that would do away with the multi-billion dollar empires of the wealthy 1%. And that's why the repulblicans are against anything to do with global warming.

[Benvolio]

Republicans are not against alternative sources. Liberals want to stop producing fossil fuels now, hoping for alternatives. No drilling in the arctic waste land, no off shore, no Canadian pipeline etc. No more coal powered plants. No nuclear. Just pie in the sky by and by.

[HenryReardon]

Greenland will indeed be green. .

That's why it is named Greeland. It was green once before (it was green during the medieval warm period when the norsemen arrived and named it), and will be again. Climate changes over time in cycles that last thousands of years. Nothing to do with mankind.

[Kulindahr]

Evil is your word. I have never said they are evil. What i do say that population growth is pollution growth and emissions growth. Immigrants make every problems worse.

So all you white people should pack up and go the fuck back to your own miserable countries.

[BostonPirate]

[Lostlover]

I wonder if they will go with natural internment? That way you return to nature where you came from in the first place. Just think this isnt just about climate change either. If we had elections by popular vite then Al Gore would have been President and we could have spent trillions less by not getting into a second war.... so then we could have used those trillions saved to effect greenhouse gas changes.....

its a circle... round and round.

So tell me whats the difference between making a climate change argument when there are dead people and the ba-zillions of arguments using the dead bodies of american and allied and even the local casualties for an anti war stance?

(I know I know you are protesting because you had one cut off for seemingly the same reason) ebb and flow....

So tell me do you like global warming and figure you should make profit before sacrifice for the future? Cuz honestly the billions lost along the east coast may have been less had we started the cleaner energy policies offered by Jimmy Carter thirty years ago.

As someone with formal education on this topic, I can, without reservations, say that I believe in global warming even if I am not entirely sure we can stem the tide.

Do I think it's in good taste to switch the topic to global warming when we're still finding bodies and putting power grids back online? Absolutely not. (I also didn't think it was acceptable to ridicule Romney for accepting cans of food donated by shoppers at a grocery store he visited because, according to critics, it was "manufactured" since the donations were just purchased moments before the photo op.)

To answer your first question: the duration of a war and a hurricane aren't similar. One is completely man made and can be stopped at a moment's notice and the other happens randomly and can't be stymied unless you think that carbon dioxide emissions cause hurricanes.

I love the "I told you so" tone from the creator of this thread. I would like to remind him the response from Americans here in this thread who he's wagging his finger at and the response I was given for making the same thread but about Australia. Some truly accept free speech as being a two-way street. (And no, it isn't "us" versus "them.")

(PS: The OP knew this thread was in bad taste. Look at title: "Uncomfortable post-Sandy question)

[JayHawk]

Oh I understand that your upset you had a thread on an internet forum closed. I get it.

But if you were trying to make the same point ...how then is it invalid now? or was it invalid then and you are now just admitting it?

You have a formal education in Global warming????? whats that look like? Perhaps Environmental Engineering?

[Benvolio]

Seriously, why is population control off the table as a step toward emissions limitation?

[JayHawk]

Because it doesn't work for emissions limitation. One word: China.

Also LL I get that it wont make a difference in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately we created this inductrialized world that depends upon the motivation of wealth to exist. Even if the US has curbed it's fossil fuels use when Jimmy Carter suggested it there would be no discernible change in climate. However i do think we could go from devastating damage to life ending event if we do not slow it down.

[BostonPirate]

Government population control of minorities...

Hmmmm

Now where have I heard that one before