Discussion:
Why Is It That Only Unemployed Redneck SisterFuckers Think That Global Warming Is A Big Conspiracy?
Add Reply
Orel Smith
2017-09-04 01:58:45 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Orel Smith
2018-09-13 03:11:35 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
2019-01-15 23:15:26 UTC
Reply
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
2019-01-15 23:15:27 UTC
Reply
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
Bucko
2019-03-03 20:04:52 UTC
Reply
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
2019-08-08 22:45:46 UTC
Reply
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...