90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Typhoon Haiyan And Rising Global Tides

We go to the Philippines, to look at Typhoon relief efforts there, and the growing vulnerability of island nations.

This Monday, Nov. 11, 2013 file aerial photo taken from a Philippine Air Force helicopter shows the devastation of the first landfall by typhoon Haiyan in Guiuan, Eastern Samar province, central Philippines. Haiyan slammed the island nation with a storm surge two stories high and some of the highest winds ever measured in a tropical cyclone. (AP)

This Monday, Nov. 11, 2013 file aerial photo taken from a Philippine Air Force helicopter shows the devastation of the first landfall by typhoon Haiyan in Guiuan, Eastern Samar province, central Philippines. Haiyan slammed the island nation with a storm surge two stories high and some of the highest winds ever measured in a tropical cyclone. (AP)

It’s hard to watch the suffering in the Philippines after the onslaught of super typhoon Haiyan.  Cities and towns just flattened.  Now hungry, thirsty, sick, desperate.  On a tsunami scale.  Many have given for relief, but it’s hard for relief to get through, to get in.  Airports too small.  Roads blocked.  Food convoys and warehouses attacked by hungry mobs and looters.  And then, the terrible, hanging question:  Is this the future?  For Pacific islands?  For coastal populations?  For the global poor, and more?  Up next On Point:  responding, and reading the suffering, in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan.

– Tom Ashbrook

Where To Donate

Guests

Ivan Watson, Senior international correspondent for CNN. (@IvanCNN)

Mike Delaney, director of humanitarian assistance at Oxfam. (@oxfamamerica)

Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

From Tom’s Reading List

TIME: Climate Change Didn’t Cause Supertyphoon Haiyan. But the Storm Is Still a Reason to Fight Warming — “U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change head Christiana Figueres, who will help oversee the Warsaw talks, said the typhoon was part of the ‘sobering reality’ of global warming. The sheer power of Haiyan, as well as the still uncounted human devastation it has wrought, all but assures that the supertyphoon will become a symbol of climate change for years to come, just as Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy have. But how much of a role did current climate change actually play in the making of Haiyan? That’s less clear.”

BBC News: Typhoon prompts ‘fast’ by Philippines climate delegate — “The head of the Philippines delegation at UN climate talks in Poland has said he will stop eating until participants make ‘meaningful’ progress. In an emotional speech, Yeb Sano linked the ‘staggering’ devastation caused by Typhoon Haiyan to a changing climate. Mr Sano said he was speaking on behalf of those who lost their lives in the storm and his fast would last until ‘we stop this madness.’”

New York Times: Rising Despair as Officials Struggle to Get Aid to Victims – “Philippine officials found themselves on the defensive Tuesday over the pace of relief efforts as Manila struggled to get supplies to the airport in the city of Tacloban, where as many as 10,000 people were feared dead and most of its residents were struggling to get basic foodstuffs and water four days after the typhoon struck on Friday.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • JGC

    I am struck by the near-universal headlines in the media “Thousands dead; Reports of looting”. These people are surviving, not “looting”.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      I was thinking the same thing. Of course, there ‘could’ be looting not related to surviving as well.

  • Shag_Wevera

    This typhoon isn’t going to change the minds of anyone who doesn’t already accept man-made climate change.

    • HonestDebate1

      Oh please. Do we have to use every storm to push agendas?

      • Shag_Wevera

        I’m not pushing any agenda. Don’t you agree with my ststement? I’d hope this show would be more than saying how bad we feel for the Phillipines. That’d be pretty boring.

        • HonestDebate1

          I guess that’s fair. I certainly had to infer a few things to assume you are pushing an agenda. Taken at face value, your comment is vanilla enough. If you say you didn’t mean to imply anything with it then fine. My apologies.

          But many here are pushing agendas, not the least of which is On Point. Thousands of people are dead, children are begging in the streets, billions of dollars of infrastructure is destroyed, there is a colossal humanitarian effort in motion and stories of triumph and tragedy everywhere. I just think injecting a storyline that implies this is anything new or man’s punishment for burning coal…or something, is not productive nor compassionate.

          And yes, I agree with your statement to the extent that people’s minds won’t be changed about the price of tea in China either. It’s just as unrelated.

      • jefe68

        Do you have to use every show to push agendas?

      • Don_B1

        If getting the reality and urgency of the truth out is important, then Shag_evera’s comment is hugely relevant, particularly if the country i to learn from this.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Why would it change any minds? Experts are not tying this storm to climate change. Further, even if they did tie this particular storm to climate change it would say nothing new about source of the climate change — man or natural variations.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        The storm is in the climate, and the climate is changing. It cannot be separate from the climate; therefore climate change affected the storm.

        It is only the largest most powerful storm on record.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l0FOGWCbcAM

        It was equivalent to an EF4 tornado that was over 40 miles wide that lasted 2-3 hours. And the storm was ~1,200 MILES wide. The storm tidal surge was huge.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Fortunately this storm doesn’t make the top 35 list of deadliest cyclones. Not even close.

          http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/deadlyworld.asp?MR=1

          • Ray in VT

            The advanced warnings that modern weather systems can provide are pretty likely to aid in reductions of casualties in some situations, plus the ability, even given the limitations in the current situation, to bring in emergency relief or to provide some sort of water purification so as to prevent the outbreak and spread of water-born diseases like cholera.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Reality should be enough. But, you’re right – we are frogs in the stew pot.

      • TFRX

        I’ve been using that saw about “how to boil a frog” since I was knee high to…some sort of colorful young critter.

        The weird thing is, it’s not literally true in nature, no matter how it applies to human behavior.

        http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/12/08/the-mathematics-of-the-boiled/

        • Don_B1

          Neil Blanchard TFRX Shag_Wevera WorriedfortheCountry jefe68 HonestDebate1

          TFRX:
          I enjoyed your post!

          But the experiment with frogs in water raised to boiling has apparently been performed (I think I read it on Climate Progress) and the result was that a frog with a brain jumped out as the water warmed; a frog with its brain removed did not.

          So humans are trying to act like brainless frogs. How much lower can you get? Maybe humans will try to find out.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Ah, you bring back memories of the high school biology lab and double pithing the amphibian. A double pithed frog won’t jump out but its heart will still be beating.

            But I wonder to this day if there was collusion when the English teacher assigned Poe’s “The Tell Tale Heart” the same week.

          • Don_B1

            I don’t remember the details of the experiment (if they were provided to this level), but as “double pithing” kills the animal, I doubt that is what was done.

            But the Poe reference was good.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Here is what the UN had to say:

      “Scientists say single weather events cannot conclusively be linked to global warming. Also, the link between man-made warming and hurricane activity is unclear, though rising sea levels are expected to make low-lying nations more vulnerable to storm surges”

      http://bigstory.ap.org/article/typhoon-haiyan-overshadows-un-climate-talks

    • fun bobby

      probably because typhoons occurred before people. weather events are not god evidence of climate change. its a logical flaw and weakens the argument. I am someone who does understand how humans affect the climate and its annoying to hear people say every weather event is evidence of climate change. weather and climate are different. I think the whole argument that is had in the political arena about whether it is man made or not it absurd and irrelevant. the climate will change with or without us. we will have to adapt to it. perhaps we can control the weather that is easier and more important than controlling the climate.

      • Don_B1

        You are twisting the truth of climate change to deny the changing nature of what is happening over multiple events.

        What you are saying is like claiming that a long home run hit by Bobby Bonds was not due to his use of steroids to make him stronger, Certainly he might have hit a home run that far before he started using steroids, but it is unlikely he would have hit as many that far.

        • fun bobby

          actually I am straightening it out. tell me more about “bobby bonds”

          • Don_B1

            Just go to your local community college and take some probability and statistics courses and then come back to this page in a couple of years, when you have some education under your belt.

  • HonestDebate1

    Officials are now saying the death toll will reach about 2500 which s awful but better than the original estimate of 10K.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      We’ll see what happens. A lot of people were killed directly by the storm, and many more are dieing and will die due to starvation, dehydration, disease, wounds, accidents, exposure, etc.

  • alsordi

    I have personally been through two super-typhoons in my life, but fortunately I was in re-enforced concrete home, with a concrete roof. The reason for most of the deaths in the Philippines is POVERTY and lack of infrastructure. People who live in sea-level wood and tin shacks have little chance against 200 mile/hr winds and waves.

    For the 100 years that the USA basically controlled the Philippines, they added little but beer, spam, and political corruption as a legacy. Personally, I don’t buy the “white Knight” Americans to the rescue.

    What I see is conquerors and exploiters coming back with a few band-aids, with the intention of regaining a foothold in a strategic Asian location.

    • Shag_Wevera

      Yup. Pretty much.

    • fun bobby

      on the plus side those shacks can be put back up pretty quick

  • lobstahbisque

    it’s not manmade global warming, it”s God removing his guiding hand from the planet as punishment for abortion and homosexuality. Even the angels have left the scene and God has quit the book publishing biz. Too bad He has such bad aim….

    • Ray in VT

      Have you been reading David Barton?

      • lobstahbisque

        Yes. It’s absolutley Divine!

        • Ray in VT

          That’s giving him too much credit. Even he would probably, at most, claim to merely be divinely inspired.

    • Renee Engine-Bangger

      Yeah, God is on a coffee break. Damned religious unions!

    • Leonard Bast

      Please tell us you’re being ironic.

      • Don_B1

        Sarcastic, more likely?

    • Fiscally_Responsible

      I assume based upon your last two sentences that you are being sarcastic. One of the wonderful attributes about God is that He gives man a free will. He allows us the choice of whether to believe in Him or not, to pursue Him or not pursue Him however we choose, etc. He is extremely patient with us, undeservedly so. Natural disasters/consequences/entropy/death and all that is negative are the result of man’s choice to disobey God when Adam was given the choice in The Garden of Eden. The consequences of man’s sin, whether is is abortion or homosexuality as you cite, or every other sin that man commits, is all of the negative consequences that we observe today. In the end, everyone will realize that God is Who He says He is as given to us in the Bible (and nowhere else) and will acknowledge so. Hopefully it will be during their earthly life when there is still time to repent and obtain eternal life in heaven rather than after death when the consequence is eternal separation from God whom they rejected.

      • lobstahbisque

        Personally, I prefer worshiping at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. it’s followers believe global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters are caused by the reduction in the numbers of pirates since the 1800s. Hell, if intelligent Design can be taught as a scientific theory, then so can the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.

        • TFRX

          I’d try it except I’m just too skeptical about Gluten in my heart.

          • lobstahbisque

            Maybe there’s a sect called The Church of the Flying Gluten Free Spaghetti Monster.

          • TFRX

            “Praying away the gluten” treatments have been shown as ineffective, although they do make a bit of coin from the gulliible.

          • lobstahbisque

            Ha!

        • fun bobby

          there are plenty of pirates

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, but I think that the FSM doesn’t recognize the digital or motorboat verities. He’s old school. He likes wooden hulls, peg legs and parrots. The others are pretenders. PINOs.

          • fun bobby

            I see a lot more of the latter variety walking around of late as well.

          • Ray in VT

            Well, if they are finally getting their numbers back up, then the only thing that we may need to worry about is how long and/or how bad will the FSM make global cooling. He may have an upper limit on what is the acceptable number of old-timey pirates, so we should keep an eye on that.

          • fun bobby

            its that cursed johnny depp to blame

      • TFRX

        Oh, I forgot: You are one of the very, very few Libertarians who has the fundie Christian schtick down, chapter and verse.

        • lobstahbisque

          Religious nuts are so fun to crack.

          • Fiscally_Responsible

            You are free to be as sarcastic as you want to be. One day, and that day will surely come, you and everyone else who has ever lived will acknowledge the truth as exclusively provided to us in the Bible. For your sake, I hope that it is in this lifetime when your eternal destiny can still be affected by your decision rather than waiting until it is too late.

          • TFRX

            Isn’t there one real goddamned (in the literal sense of the word) athiest Libertarian out there who’s gonna try and get the good name of “Libertarian” back from this guy?

          • lobstahbisque

            I am the god Asbestos and thus immune to your incredibly presumptuous fire and brimstone.

          • Fiscally_Responsible

            Have a nice day!

          • jefe68

            What if you’re wrong? What if this is just what it is, a lot of energy and matter swirling around the universe.

          • Ray in VT

            One could always resort to Pascal’s Wager. What’s the cost/benefit.

          • fun bobby

            why is that stuff doing all that?

      • jefe68

        Do you wear a funny hat when you post this stuff?

      • Don_B1

        Two points:

        On abortion, the fetus of all mammals is subject to going astray at just about all stages in its development. “Mother Nature” takes care of this with miscarriages in the early stages of a pregnancy, but is much less likely to do so when the fetus is more advanced.

        But that more advanced stage makes many of the malformations that occur dangerous to the reproductive health and even the life of the mother. Therefore at least some doctor performed abortions are an extension of what “Mother Nature” would do if it could.

        Note that over half of all “elected” abortions are for women who are already mothers and are financially strapped to the point they do not see their way to even complete the pregnancy not to mention raise the child. This is more an indictment of the lack of family support in the “American culture” than an indictment of the pregnant woman.

        ———

        Homosexuality has been shown reasonably conclusively to be biological, not some “choice” any individual makes. As each study posts its conclusions, that overall conclusion has been reinforced and this trend is likely to continue as the sources of that change are determined.

        But the result of the homosexual intolerance is that people are denied the legal companionship that heterosexuals enjoy. Just think what you would feel if the culture prevented you from marrying your spouse (assuming you have one) or gave you no hope of marrying someone you came to love, with all that means beyond just sex.

        ——-

        Neither of these “values” should be enforced on a whole society, though individuals can be free to entertain them, in the interest of fairness to all in the hugely different conditions in which they live.

  • toc1234

    never say that Tom would fail to exploit a crisis. Rahm would be proud.

    • Don_B1

      The really shameless are the radical conservatives who created the Great Recession and then have mercilessly “exploited that crisis” to both deflect from their culpability and use it for their ultimate goal, the reduction and possible elimination of the social safety net.

      They have worked tirelessly to ensure the recovery would be extremely slow leaving them even more time to win the minds of those with no deep knowledge of economics to accept their false solutions, at least until they can consolidate their hoped-for “win.”

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Dr. Kerry Emanuel?

    Co signer of an open letter to policy influencers promoting nuclear energy as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. If you are concerned about CO2 emissions this is the only rational position.

    I recommend everyone watch the nuclear energy documentary “Pandora’s Promise” . What makes it interesting is it done from the view of EX-anti-nuclear activists and environmentalists. It’ll make you think.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/pandora-nuclear-stone-ifr-response/

    • TFRX

      CNN: “When you want to watch Fox, but don’t want to be seen watching Fox.”

      “By oversimplifying the issues, trivializing opposing viewpoints and mocking those who express them, and selectively presenting information in a misleading way, it serves more to obfuscate than to illuminate. As such, it adds little of value to the substantive debate about the merits of various energy sources in a carbon-constrained world.”

      (Dr. Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists.)

      In the end, by dismissing the protestors and failing to engage them in significant debate about the pros and cons of nuclear energy, the film
      undermined its own message.

      (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Have you seen the film?
        If so, I’d like to know what you think.

        • TFRX

          CNN’s playing it tomorrow, no?

          I’ll consume as much as I can stand. I’m especially interested in how it treats the “too cheap to meter” nuclear sham.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            They take on the anti-nuclear propaganda that they once believed and spouted but isn’t supported by science and facts. It is really what makes the film powerful. There will be a surprise that you may like. #nospoliers

          • TFRX

            “They”, whoever, convert, and science and facts be damned?

            I’m smelling another Lila Rose as fronted by James Okeefe. The right’s idea of “science” and “journalism” is full of those hacks.

            ‘Pandora’s Promise’ is as stacked as advocate movies
            get
            …. In brief — or so the movie’s one-sided reasoning goes —
            everything that anti-nuclear energy activists and skeptics have thought
            about the issue is wrong….

            But you need to make an argument. A parade of like-minded nuclear-power advocates who assure us that everything will be all right just doesn’t cut it.

            I hope I’m surprised.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I agree you should always be skeptical.

            I still think they did a good job especially because of the angle they took.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I just read the NYtimes review. I would love to see this dude’s review of the Goreacle’s “Inconvenient Truth”.

            Notice how he doesn’t take on any of the facts presented in the movie.

            “Yet such deck-stacking in movies can also be a viewer turnoff, no matter how seemingly worthy the cause.”

            Somehow I don’t the IC review in the NYTimes would make the same charges. But I’d be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong. :)

  • ToyYoda

    I’d like to know if it’s fair to question the leadership of the Philippine government to lead the emergency recovery effort?

    • fun bobby

      they are colony of ours from way back

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Amazing, 10:12 AM and Tom brought in the climate change boogey man. What took him so long!!!

  • Wahoo_wa

    Hasn’t On Point had scientists on before who have specifically stated that there is no proof recent, larger sized storms are caused by climate change. Why is Tom taking the opinion of a politician over the opinion of his own scientist guests?

    • brettearle

      Dr. Kerry Emanuel believes in Global Warming. But he’s a Republican.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        I’m not sure it matters but ThinkProgress claims he is a registered ‘independent’. Maybe in MA that is considered GOP?

      • Wahoo_wa

        What’s your point?

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        Dr. Richard Alley is a registered Republican.

        • Wahoo_wa

          Politics has nothing to do with climate change.

          • Ray in VT

            I don’t know about that. The ideologies that feed one’s political affiliations can, and sometimes appear to, feed into what one’s position is regarding climate change (in this particular instance).

          • Wahoo_wa

            My point is that one’s political beliefs do not, in any way, affect the truth of climate change.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that that is true, just as one’s political beliefs cannot affect the physical shape of the Earth, but would you agree that one’s politics can and does often affect what one believes to be true about climate change?

          • Wahoo_wa

            Yes. Which gets back to the point I originally made. Tom’s politics prevent him from accepting his guest scientists’ often expressed observation that climate change has nothing to do with the larger sized storms we have recently experienced.

          • Ray in VT

            There are warnings regarding linking any particular single event to climate change, however there is a decent amount of talk within the scientific community that leads in the direction of things such as higher ocean temperatures fueling larger storms.

          • Don_B1

            I think if you listen to Professor Emanuel’s comments today, you will learn that he does think climate change is having a strong influence on the size and strength of such storms.

            He has said that there is currently no significant evidence on its possible effect on tornados, which could be either way, depending on which of two oppositional effects predominate as a tornado forms.

          • Don_B1

            That has been true among the Republican leadership and rank-and-file, but it is breaking down. There is a Pew poll out showing a near 50-50 split between those that recognize ACC and its deniers:

            http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-over-climate-change/

            Non-Tea Party Republicans are 3:2 in support of Anthropomorphic Climate Change, while only 1 in 4 Tea Party members are.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that I’ve seen one or two other polls that show numbers that are basically in line with those.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that the true numbers from that poll are 32% of non TEA Party Republicans and 9% of the TEA Party support the notion of ACC, while the 3:2 and 1 in 4 numbers are for those who say that there is any sort of actual global warming. What I think is the startling number is the 41% of TEA Party respondents who said that global warming is “just not happening”.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            But the Yale survey showed that the Tea Party is more knowledgeable on science. :)

            I wonder how the wording was done on global warming since we know that prior warming last century has plateaued for the last 17 years according to satellite temperature records. Time scales are important. And there are recent peer reviewed papers that say the plateau could continue for decades more.

          • Ray in VT

            More knowledgeable on average than the general public might not be something entirely worth crowing about, but it is better than worse. That same survey also said that the “sign of the correlation indicates that science comprehension
            decreases as political outlooks move in the rightward direction–i.e.,
            the more “liberal” and “Democrat,” the more science comprehending.”

            Wording would be important. It appears that this was the wording of the question:

            “From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the
            average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer over the past few
            decades, or not?”

            http://www.people-press.org/question-search/?qid=1841038&pid=51&ccid=51#top

            That would seem to rule out, at least to me, the idea of a shorter time period.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Interesting.
            A ‘few’ decades is 30 years. The science says warming for the first 15 years and then a plateau for the last 15 years. Given the science, different answers could be justified. Only 2% said mixed. That is interesting too. People are entrenched in their belief system.

          • Ray in VT

            “Few” is subjective, with it being at least 3, but if one asks has the Earth warmed during the past 30 years, then the correct answer would be yes.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Not necessarily.

            “Has been getting warmer for the last 30 years.

            The first 15 years is a clear yes.
            The last 15 years is a plateau so a clear no.

            Given the ambiguity of the modifier ‘few’ and the recent trend for HALF the interval the answer is not clear.

            They didn’t ask did the earth warm over the last 30 years; they asked “has been getting warmer”. That could be interpreted as a trend question. What if they changed the interval to 20 years? 15 years?

          • Don_B1

            Wrong!

            See my post in response to your previous post.

          • Don_B1

            You are comparing apples and oranges, as if the question of “few decades” meant that was the total length of time warming was going on.

            Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” graph shows how strongly temperatures have been increasing for more than 150 years!

            This is a poll question on a small part of the total subject.

          • Don_B1

            There was a big peak in surface temperature in 1998 due to a confluence of factors, ENSO, etc., but even that eas less than 17 years ago.

            But more importantly, the oceans have increased their uptake of heat energy as something a[[arently went over a tipping point and the water between 700 ft and 2500 feet down has been warming significantly over the last decade. The amount of additional heat energy in the ocean is well over double what is absorbed by the atmosphere on average over the last hundred years, and well over 10 times that over the last decade. So the undoubtedly temporary near hiatus in surface warming is more than made up by ocean warming.

            At some point the ocean could return some of that heat to the atmosphere, giving a big jump in temperature.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            It seems to have a lot to do with acknowledging the reality of climate change.

          • Wahoo_wa

            Regardless of acknowledging or not acknowledging, political leanings do not affect climate change.

          • Don_B1

            I think that was Neil’s point.

            Also, Dr. Richard Lindzen, an ACC denier, is a registered Democrat, and 5 or ten years ago, Dr. Emanuel was reported to be a Republican. Maybe Dr. Emanuel moved to an Independent registration in reaction to the ideological anti-climate position of the current Tea/Republicans?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I can’t keep up with the acronyms.

            What is “ACC denier”?

            Let me guess.

            Anthropogenic Climate Catastrophe?

            I know Dr. Lindzen believes there is no evidence to be alarmed about an impending climate warming catastrophe. Does that make him a denier? Denier is a loaded term. You can deny a fact but can you deny a theory or hypothesis?

            “The extension of the “denier” tag to group after group is a development that should alarm all liberal-minded people. One of the great achievements of the Enlightenment—the liberation of historical and scientific enquiry from dogma—is quietly being reversed. – Edward Skidelsky”

            http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/11/denial/#more-13727

          • Don_B1

            ACC: Anthropomorphic Climate Change.

            A denier is one who opposes positions on climate change that the vast majority of climate scientists support without any scientific data to support that contradictory position and in the face of scientific evidence against their assertions.

            If your accountant advocated that 2 + 2 = 5 when it was to your advantage, would you accept his filing of your taxes with the I.R.S.? Would you expect that filing to be accepted?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            But your analogy is not appropriate.

            Dr. Lindzen and all skeptical scientists acknowledge climate change. The debate is about how much is caused by human activities AND the probability of catastrophic climate change in the future. The current state of climate science is about theories and hypotheses. The science is far from settled.

            Since there has been no warming for the last 17 years as recorded by satellite temperature records we could call those who don’t acknowledge the data — deniers.

            However, I wouldn’t slap the ‘denier’ label on those who dismiss the recent peer reviewed papers that show much of the global warming is due to natural variations. They are just skeptics of the new science.

            Read the “Words That Think For Us” essay by Dr. Edward Skidelsky that I linked from Dr. Curry’s site. It might make you think twice about using the denier label.

          • Ray in VT

            So what are the “natural variations”? Solar energy is sometimes suggested, but that doesn’t bear out in research.

            Who is denying the data? Some certainly allege that there is some sort of either conspiracy or massive incompetence in organizations like NOAA that make their data unsound, but I don’t hear people suggesting that surface temperatures have not been relatively flat (flat at elevated levels) for some time.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Reputable scientists don’t deny the plateau but propaganda sites like skepticalscience realclimate make statements like “misleading warming pause”. Many commenters on this site parrot the propaganda. Surprised you missed it. Also, the term ‘pause’ is propaganda. It isn’t based in science. Only after temperatures start rising again can you call it a ‘pause’.

            http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc

          • Ray in VT

            What about the conspiracy claims of propaganda sites like Watts? There seems to be a fair amount of parroting of the views expressed on his site.

            It is also misleading to suggest that there is no warming, as measurements do show increased warming in the deeper parts of the ocean.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Watts?
            Watts provides a valuable service as you long as you understand what it is. They are fighting FOR science and against propaganda. Sure, there is plenty of snark and they have their prejudices. Not everything they post is accurate but they have an open forum for feedback — true peer review, not pal review. climateaudit.org by steve mcintyre is another site trying to ‘get it right’.

            Do you really believe the 97% nonsense? You can’t get 97% of any group to be in lockstep. 20% of US citizens believe aliens landed in Rosewell, NM.

            How about the IPCC? Since their 2007 they increased their confidence in catastrophic warming from 85% to 95% despite the increasing inaccuracy in the models. Don’t you see the need for science to be skeptical and question group think? Doesn’t it bother you that CO2 is always the boogey man. They want CO2 to be the villain. That isn’t the way science is supposed to work.

            I’m confident it will get sorted out eventually but it is taking longer than it should because of the group think.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that legitimate science is plenty skeptical on its own, and I don’t think that it needs some non-scientists, some with seemingly no degrees, professional experience or publishing work, getting held up as fonts of knowledge which stand in judgement of people who have spent decades working diligently in their fields. It’s the sort of cult of the amateur that I find that some prefer when they don’t like or want to trust “intellectuals” and such.

            It seems to me as though you are making some presumptions regarding climate science, namely that they have cast about for a “boogey man” and somehow settled upon CO2 emissions, rather than the scientific community having come to that conclusion based upon where the research has indicated.

            I think that there are definitely things in the climate system that we don’t yet fully understand, but when looking for that, I’ll stick to the peer reviewed science, rather than those who seek to align themselves with questionable groups, such as Heartland. I also have concerns regarding how so many “skeptics” seem to have a particular political ideology, as well as some of the religiously based statements of some, which run highly counter to the pursuit of fact as opposed to belief.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            You’ve completely misconstrued what happens on watts. Many academics including some who publish peer reviewed papers contribute at watts. Again, it isn’t perfect but it isn’t what you claim. [See the post on Yolanda wind speeds at the top. They are just trying to get it right].

            It is clear that the ‘science’ as outlined by the IPCC is not healthy. There is too much group think and advocacy science.

            I suggest you follow Dr. Judith Curry’s blog. She has posted a number of provocative essays that take on the climate science community even though she is a mainstream member.

            “Writing recently in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr Richard S. Lindzen, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said of those with political agendas who found it useful to employ science, “This immediately involves a distortion of science at a very basic level: namely science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry. The real utility of science stems from the latter; the political utility stems from the former.”

            http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/07/john-howard-one-religion-is-enough/#more-13667

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Here is a new paper that sticks a fork into warmist alarmism.

            “Our new paper: El Nino warming reduces climate sensitivity to 1.3 deg. C”
            “The Role of ENSO in Global Ocean Temperature Changes during 1955-2011 Simulated with a 1D Climate Model“

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/our-new-paper-el-nino-warming-reduces-climate-sensitivity-to-1-3-deg-c/

          • Ray in VT

            So, is this the definitive paper? There have been a number of papers regarding climate sensitivity published within the last year or so. I have heard the ones minimizing the sensitivity highly touted, but not the ones that have concluded that sensitivity is relatively in line with previous estimates. I guess that whether or not a particular paper puts a fork in this or that depends upon how one feels about the conclusions in relation to one’s beliefs.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            No, I don’t know if this paper is ‘definitive’. However, what IS definitive is the models that have predicted higher levels of warming have been dead wrong.

            I’m happy to wait and as long as they don’t do anything stupid like taxing carbon. Then I’m perfectly content to wait for the science to settle. Without policy interventions this is purely entertainment for me. btw- the push to sequester CO2 is one the silliest things I’ve ever heard of. And yes, Bush was one of the ones pushing this nonsense.

            Oh wait, I just remembered another stupidity. Corn ethanol mandates. Solyndra…..cash for clunkers … never mind. There are too many to count.

          • Ray in VT

            If one concludes that emissions are not a problem, then perhaps some of those things are foolhardy. However, that is not the current state of the science, and there are some things that we do not know. For instance, did the models predict the warming of the lower oceans? If not, then there is one area that they are flawed. If the wave theory holds merit, then there is that as well, although if the wave is real and is only temporarily displacing heat, then what happens when that ends, as cycles do.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            IMHO, most everything I mentioned IS foolhardy EVEN if CO2 is an issue. Maybe a revenue neutral carbon tax might be warranted. Corn ethanol, cash for clunkers, solyndra are demonstrable failures.

            I wouldn’t say that deep ocean heat increases is ‘settled science’ even among the mainstream community.

            Here is a post on WUWT today on deep ocean heat if you are willing to wade through it. Again, they are trying to get the science right over there with complete transparency. It isn’t as you described.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/comments-on-stefan-rahmstorfs-post-at-realclimate-what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#more-97305

          • Ray in VT

            I think not, given what can be done via green technologies and conservation/efficiencies. Because those things will not massively reduce emissions, then should we not do them? It seems as though solutions that offer some reductions are better than merely merrily trucking along while doing nothing,

            I looked at Tisdale, and what are his credentials regarding oceanography and climate change, aside from his own blog, being on Watts and self-publishing his ebooks. My point here is this: sure his post has a bunch of graphs, but how do you know if it has any merit? Who’s checking on his numbers and findings to see if there is anything there. That’s one of the benefits of the professional scientific community, which he seems to write off as keeping out those who have the real facts, such as himself.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Well, the US has been “doing something”. Emissions are 11% lower than 2007. It has nothing to do with cash for clunkers, solyndra or corn ethanol. IMHO we should be investing in energy sources that give us energy and financial security. Cheaper than coal. There will certainly be an intersection of low carbon energy sources that are also good for energy security. Carbon sequestration adds no value in my view. Maybe if it was ‘free’.

            I don’t offer Mr. Tisdale as an authority. His piece was offered as a response to an advocacy piece presented on realclimate. He raises some good questions. In a healthy system, those questions would be answered by the science community and the result would be better science.

            There are examples of citizen scientists improving the science of peer reviewed papers. The most famous example is Steve McIntyre’s exposure of the hockey stick problem in Mann’s Nature article.

            http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

          • Don_B1

            The “highly touted papers” that claim low sensitivity are touted by the denier community and have been successful shown to misrepresent the true value of the sensitivity.

            Dr. Spencer (and Dr. Lindzen) has been a longtime promoter of low sensitivity but has never been able to convince climate scientists (other than the few in the 3%) of the value of his arguments, and I expect that this one will fall as soon as the climate science community gets to take a look at it. But a lot of those scientists are justifiably tired of and lacking time for critiquing his work, so it may not come immediately (like days or a couple weeks) but it will come unless the paper has a big flaw. This is unlikely because Dr. Spencer usually buries his mistake pretty deeply.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Spenser is sooooo clever that he hides his errors? Lindzen is unethical? or just a crackpot? The ‘missing heat’ is a monster lurking in the deep oceans just waiting to pop out despite the clear measurement issues.

            I’m sorry Don but take a step back. You guys are rooting for an outcome. CO2 must be the villain. No other explanation will be acceptable — even IF we fall into another mini-ice age. Why is water vapor not studied by the IPCC even though it represents 95% of GHGs by volume and is much more potent than CO2?

            Orwell warned us about groups like the IPCC.

            If you have an open mind these facts about the IPCC should disturb you and everyone else that cares about science.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/#more-97390

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Another recent paper by Dr. Marcia Wyatt ties much of the warming to natural cycles — a 300 year cycle.

            More evidence that the science is not ‘settled’. #97%

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

          • Ray in VT

            That is what I thought that you might be referring to. I find it interesting the level of credence or impact that you give to one piece, as compared to the vast body of evidence relating to the role of greenhouse gases and the role that they play in global warming. If this theory holds any water, then we will see how it plays out, although my inclination is not to regard this as the the magic pill that the “skeptics” have been looking for.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Of course time will tell. The recent trend is ‘the more we learn the less we realize we know”. That is healthy. If advocacy science didn’t exist in the climate community they would just admit it and everything would be good.

            As Mick and the boys said:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzcWwmwChVE

          • Don_B1

            The Daily Mail article provides NO understanding of what these “waves” are, except to say they are analogous to waves of humans standing then sitting at sporting events.

            The whole history of those who wish to avoid mitigation of the effects of Climate Change is full of attempts to find “natural cycles” that could account for the increased temperatures the Earth has been experiencing, and the Wyatt/Curry paper is shown to be nothing more than one more here:

            http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/10/16/role-for-eurasian-arctic-shelf-sea-ice-in-a-secularly-varying-hemispheric-climate-signal-during-the-20th-century/

            Your posts to defend doing nothing to avoid the worst effects of Climate Change are doomed to be wrong.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I click on the link and see ostrich and then hit delete. Tell your buddy that insulting someone is no way to win an argument.

            Of course humans are emitting CO2 by burning fossil fuels. Do you have a point?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Are you afraid of the facts? Watch them and learn about the science of climate change.

          • Don_B1

            You must not care to win arguments then as you manage to insult every thinking person with almost all of your posts here.

          • Don_B1

            Ray in VT Wahoo_wa Neil Blanchard

            Dr. Lindzen denied climate warming for a long time until even he could not find any way to deny it, but he immediately moved to a position of claiming that the warming would not amount to much, first saying that clouds were a negative feedback and would slow the warming at some non-catastrophic level, until it was shown that clouds are a predominantly positive feedback.

            Now he is claiming that the constant relating CO2 doubling to temperature gain is below 2°C, whereas all the accepted data puts that number in the range 2.5° to 4° C, with some data indicating higher numbers but they are not accepted, at least yet.

            Dr. Lindzen’s retreat on specific points only to come up with new reasons to deny the need to act to mitigate the effects of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels still keeps him in the denier category.

            It is true that by his “strategic retreats” on some points has allowed him to live closer to the genuine “skeptic,” the fact that he has always had fall-back point which keeps him in the overall “game” of denying the need for any mitigation. He has not been able to produce any scientific data that has stood up to examination to back his position, which is what Edward Skidelsky requires in his article on “deniers.”

            One argument that fails to win scientists does not make a denier, but a continuous string of such failing arguments over decades does. And it does indicate deliberate dishonesty or self-deception. I prefer to believe the latter of Dr. Lindzen, but I can’t read his mind, and I treat the acceptance of new but accurate results that contradict what one believes the hallmark of a good honest scientist. Dr. Lindzen has failed that test.

            Everyone needs to read David Burgess’s perspective also.

          • peterstaats

            And most deniers know that the A in ACC is anthropogenic (caused by humans), not anthropomorphic (like humans) even though they don’t agree with term.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            I’m pretty sure you mean Anthropogenic Climate Change.

          • Don_B1

            My apologies! Many times over!

            No excuse, but I guess it also goes to the saying, haste makes waste!

          • HonestDebate1

            They can’t use GW anymore, it’s not panning out for them.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Is that why they continue to ‘deny’ the plateau in global temperatures over the last 17 years? #settledscience

          • Don_B1

            Climate scientists are not denying the flattening of the rise in surface temperatures for the last decade, but they are not really concerned as the temperature record over the last 150 years shows many other periods where the surface temperature rise has had brief hiatuses, but then resumed an inexorable climb.

            But they also point out that there has been a big increase in the temperature rise in the oceans, where the previously near-flat temperatures in the 700 foot to 2,000 foot layer have now been increasing, showing where the heat that previously would have warmed the surface atmosphere has gone instead into the ocean.

  • Don_B1

    That would appear to be a good reason to not donate through the American Red Cross; but the Philippines have their own Red Cross, which is given, along with others (with some redundancy to the list provided by On Point above) here:

    http://www.wnyc.org/story/how-help-victims-phillipines-typhoon/

  • Jeff

    Great, the climate change worship…even though everyone says you can’t base the theory on a single event!

    • Ray in VT

      I think that you have that last statement rather backwards.

      • jefe68

        I think this chap has the propensity for getting things backwards.

        • Jeff

          I appreciate you comparing me to Yoda…I’ll take the compliment.

          • jefe68

            You might be many things, but one of them Yoda is not.

    • Don_B1

      The anthropomorphic climate change theory moved from hypothesis to theory over a decade ago with the collection of vast amounts of data, all showing how the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (and poor agricultural practices) was causing increased energy storage in the atmosphere and (mostly) the oceans.

      Thus the theory is NOT based on a single event.

      But failing to listen to the whole discussion and taking a single statement out of context is the mark of an ideologue trying to salvage his (false) position.

      • Jeff

        Just explain what caused the medieval warm period…never heard why that occurred from global warmers before, it should be pretty simple since you all seem to know why the earth warms and cools right?

        • fun bobby

          la nina

        • lobstahbisque

          Oh that’s easy, they burned redheads and homos at the stake, releasing devil vapors, smoke and co2 into the atmosphere.

        • jefe68

          Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic.

          http://www.utexas.edu/know/2010/11/11/climate_myth4/

        • nj_v2

          ^ Pathetic trolling. Or, maybe you really are this ignorant.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

          [[ "Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

          Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times (Figure 1). This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

          Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in thatregion. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

          Overall, our conclusions are:

          a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and

          b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming." ]]

          • Don_B1

            Thank you (and jefe68) for digging that out.

            But I expect it will not get any responses, though a version of the question will be repeated the next time this issue comes up.

            Zombie arguments!

      • peterstaats

        The A in ACC is anthropogenic (caused by humans), not anthropomorphic (like humans). The rest of your post is equally nonsensical.

        • Don_B1

          It was my mistake on the term “anthropogenic,” but not on the rest.

          If you really have evidence that the “rest” is nonsensical, maybe you could enlighten everyone by detailing the whys of that?

      • peterstaats

        The basic flaw in the theory is the lack of controlled experimental evidence. Of course it is admittedly difficult if not impossible to perform a real-life experiment demonstrating that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global temperatures. Instead the evidence is largely based on computer models and on attempts to correlate historical data. Unfortunately computer models for something as complex as climate change are notoriously unreliable and require experimental evidence for calibration. Historical data is also unreliable (think tree rings). There is at least some short term data over the last decade and a half that finds that global temperatures are not following CO2 as the models would require. I know, short term doesn’t count, but it does indicate that there is much we don’t understand about climate change and yet we fixate on CO2.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    The additional gravity of the mass of land ice (and mountains) also pulls the sea level up around it. Sea level is quite complicated.

    • Don_B1

      I am glad to see you caught this missing item in Professor Emanuel’s listing.

  • John Walter

    Climate change itself is not as important as the trend toward destructive storms. Phillipines, India, Mexico, this year, also europe was struck with record breaking storms, earlier, Fukishima, not to forget Irene, Sandy, and Katrina, all within recent memory, and all very destructive. Also Irene (in Vermont) and the recent storm in Colorado teaches us that no place is safe. The threat is not just near the coasts.

    • Don_B1

      But it is important to realize that the trend of increasing storm intensity (higher wind from more energy storage, heavier rainfall due to higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, etc.) is the result of anthropomorphic climate change through burning of fossil fuels for energy.

      • peterstaats

        So you are saying that climate change is similar to human beings (anthropomorphic – look it up). That is as good a theory as believing that climate change results from CO2.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          I’m fairly certain that Don meant anthropogenic climate change.

          • Don_B1

            Correct!

            See my apology above. Don’t know what fired that neuron connection, but it seems to have happened twice.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        Right, the higher sea level is a result of warmer water (it expands as it warms) and a bit is from melting land ice.

        Secondly, there is about 4% more evaporation now, so there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, and this results in more intense precipitation (both rain and snow).

        The water being warmer also results in stronger storms.

        So human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change is very much part of stronger storms, like Haiyan aka Yolanda.

      • John Walter

        Yes, perhaps for you, arguing over causes is more important then preparing ourselves for the inevitable. So much time is wasted, in my opinion, with pointing fingers at each other while debating the veracity of a charging rhinocerous. Where, in my view, it is more important to tell you and everyone else, that there is in fact a charging rhinocerous coming directly at you. Are you prepared? Are we prepared? The Philippines is just the beginning, and if we don’t rescue them, who is going to rescue you or me when our time comes to be turned over by the inevitable plow of Earth’s destructive power.

  • fun bobby

    go in person

    • fun bobby

      just make sure you don’t have cholera

  • Fiscally_Responsible

    There is an alternative theory besides climate change which some people believe is the reason why sea levels are rising as seen in the attached link.

    http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/Rising-Sea-Levels-An-Alternative-Theory-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Prints_i8544915_.htm

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      God gave us our brains, right?

      We need to use them.

      • Don_B1

        I guess we can all enjoy the humor!

        I am surprised that F_R would mock the denier position!

    • Ray in VT

      Must have been done by one of those “blame America first” types.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Fat jokes are in vogue because Christie is considered a threat to Hillary’s coronation.

      • Ray in VT

        They went out of vogue? I seem to recall you “Yo momma is so fat…” jokes from the early to mid 1990s.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          OK… ‘back’ in vogue.

          Even Sarah Palin is getting in on the act…

          • Ray in VT

            Did she make a jab at Christie? If so, then do you think that she is attempting to maybe undercut the competition for 2016?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            She is on a book tour and when asked about Christie she gives him back handed complements like “he’s good for New Jersey but…”.

            You can see here what she said about Christie’s weight. Not an attack but no defense for the over-the-top attacks on Christie’s weight. Notice, she also came to Hillary’s defense.

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/12/sarah_palin_chris_christies_weight_an_issue_because_its_extreme.html

          • Don_B1

            She has to, as a “bonafide” Tea Party member/supporter!

      • fun bobby

        and jelly doughnuts

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Didn’t you hear?

          Trans fats are OUT.

          • fun bobby

            somehow I doubt that will stop Christie from demolishing boxes of doughnuts

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            You are a lap band denier.

  • Rick Hunter

    Remember the devastation in New York and vicinity from Sandy? Nowhere near as huge and powerful a storm, and it hit an area that should be economically and logistically resilient! Yet a year later, recovery is not complete. With Haiyan we have a MUCH bigger and more powerful storm hitting an area with poorer infrastructure, poorer people, poorer economy. This will be more like the recovery (nowhere near complete several years after) from the Haiti earthquake. Nature, in several of its modes, can easily overwhelm any human constructions… Yes, we do need to prepare on a global scale, and yes, we do need to respond constructively — AND QUICKLY — to climate change!

    • fun bobby

      how exactly?

      • Don_B1

        By reducing the use of fossil fuels to generate our energy and moving to better agricultural practices. That will take government intervention, but the sooner action is taken the less severe that intervention will need to be.

        If you really think a carbon tax is overly intrusive, just wait until the public demands 10 times that when they see the consequences if nothing is done. How about a big wealth tax to pay for the immediate replacement of new fossil fuel burning plants? I don’t know exactly what will be proposed then, but it will be as attention-getting as what I just suggested off the top.

        • tbphkm33

          The United States will continue to have its collective head in the sand. This country will chart the way toward the impending resource wars. Then paint it as a struggle against terrorism and other’s bent on destroying the American way of life. Conveniently forgetting the major role the U.S. had in creating the situation to start with.

          Think of Rome, slowly rotting from within while its elites sat about debating if the rot was really going on. Transpose that onto the U.S. Look at the age of the two Empires… the U.S. has less than 100 years left as a political entity as we know it today.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            ” the U.S. has less than 100 years left as a political entity as we know it today.”
            You might be right if we keep electing Obama types. #debt$17Tandgrowing

          • tbphkm33

            Especially with the lion’s share of that $17 trillion coming pre-packaged into the budget, largely from wars of opportunity against sovereign nations by the impostor “President” GW Bush.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            “Bush’s fault”
            Where have I heard that before? Hmmm.

          • Don_B1

            It is still true ! !

          • fun bobby

            too bad Obama did not get his Syrian quagmire

          • Don_B1

            The current debt level, while higher than desireable in most people’s view, is not particularly bad and given the current unemployment level and the fact of the economy being below full output, should be allowed to go even higher until those goals of lower unemployment to where full productivity is reached.

            See:

            http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-impact-of-public-debt-on-economic-growth-by-j–bradford-delong

            But also follow the link to the expanded version on his blog.

            I will have to admit I half don’t expect you to even read this, much actually analyze it seriously.

          • Don_B1

            But that is what warnings are for, so that people can change direction before going over the precipice.

            While humans are getting so close that the downward slope will make it increasingly difficult to avoid even with best efforts, I refuse to give up.

        • brettearle

          Are there not some respected Climatologists who believe that we may be beyond the point of reversibility?

          • fun bobby

            what does that mean? when would you like to reverse the climate to?

          • Don_B1

            Jim Hansen feels it is close; I often think that the natural optimism of scientists prevents them from saying it, or even believing it.

            But just about all climate scientists are seeing the increasing problems that delay to date will cause and then the firestorm of bad effects that will doom civilization as we know it today, and they are increasingly frustrated.

            But to “give up” is just what the deniers want, as then they can claim that the human race is toast and it might as well party like the Romans as their Empire crumbled.

        • AC

          if we keep buying stuff from walmart, i don’t see how things will change. and i mean all of us, we’re also killing the global citizen – have you been to beijing lately? not a lot of fun on humid days….:(
          http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-06/new-travel-accessory-for-beijing-gas-mask

          • fun bobby

            at this point Wal-Mart is more of a global citizen than Apple. You should go check out Wal-Mart’s corporate responsibility section on their site. Check out the part where they team up with Michelle Obama to address the so called “food deserts”.

          • Don_B1

            Soon it will just be every day that gas masks are required and infrared glasses necessary, if they would work(?). At least large objects should be “seeable.”

          • fun bobby

            are the goggles to see through the smog?

        • fun bobby

          wealth tax as a way to fix the envirionment, interesting.
          I have not said anything about a “carbon tax” will the carbon tax be assessed against individuals or just corporations? Tell me more. I would think that alternative energy would price fossil fuels out of the market as they become more efficient without any artificial interventions.

          • Don_B1

            The tax will be to pay for it, which should have been obvious, I thought.

            And alternative energy actually will price fossil fuels out of the market (natural gas is currently pricing coal and some uses of oil out of the market), but it will not happen in time to avoid climatic devastation if left to pure market forces without compensation for externalities.

            The externalities of natural gas extraction by fracking are just now becoming relevant to its future pricing.

          • fun bobby

            so you think the same people who reappropriate funds from the medicare trust fund wont do the same with some sort of environment tax? how will the government actually replace fossil fuel burning plants with he tax money? pay some companies to make solar panels? how is that working out?
            I think the idea of making people actually pay for their emissions is a decent and logical one but a lot of the carbon credit schemes seem more sketchy as lots of the ways the credits are generated are BS as they do not necessarily fix carbon for that long. Will this be assessed only
            against corporations or also individuals?
            When alternative energies are cheaper they will very quickly replace fossil fuel sources. People are already installing solar panels, in some cases with no upfront cost, at a very high rate and with only limited government subsidies. If the panels were to become 50% more efficient would those subsidies be needed? If solar panals are anything like DVD players they will become much better and much cheaper rapidly if we do nothing.
            How much will your plan cost?
            a far bigger impact on nat gas prices is the bipartisan efforts to create the infrastructure and legal framework for exporting out nat gas to other countries(china). This will not only raise our domestic prices that price increase will lead to far more fracking. Perhaps you should be trying to stop that from happening.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    More bad news from the central planning desk…

    This disaster IS man-made. Not pretty.

    “THE SECRET ENVIRONMENTAL COST OF US ETHANOL POLICY”

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ETHANOLS_ENVIRONMENTAL_DAMAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-12-09-35-22

    • nj_v2

      News flash! Obama is just the latest corporatist Oval Office seat warmer, as beholden to Big Ag ethanol as he is to Wall Street.

      Yet, the Worried One and his Teabaglicon pals continue to paint him as “leftist,” “liberal,” or “socialist,” thus failing to identify and address the real issue with abuse of national, political power.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        I never said this was only Obama’s fault. Obama’s biggest problem is a stunning lack of leadership. We now have data that wasn’t available when this nonsense was first passed.

        Congress must act to make the appropriate changes.

        • Don_B1

          It sure would be nice to be able to wave a wand and set everything “right.”

          As for leadership, even the best leaders cannot get people to go where they do not want to go. And all Republicans have agreed to oppose going anywhere President Obama wants to take the country, so he has had a difficult time, but he actually did get a lot done in those first two years, particularly when you consider that the House of Representatives under Speaker John Boehner has done next to nothing except make sure every initiative has been blocked, with few exceptions.

          Actually scientists did know that ethanol was not a good way to reduce greenhouse gas levels even before it passed, but as robert Dole commented to T,Boone Pickens, the agriculture lobby was going to make it happen no matter what.

          It has long been claimed that Congress could not walk and chew gum at the same time, and s

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Great, we mostly agree on the corn ethanol mandate.

            I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on Obama’s leadership skills. I’m not surprised since Obama had zero leadership experience prior to the Presidency. IMHO, the GOP is a hapless and inept opposition party. He should be toying with them. Look at the relationship between Tip O’Neil and Reagan. Reagan was a strong leader but O’Neil was no slouch either.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    More from the ‘keeping it real department’:

    “It seems reasonable to conclude that Yolanda was a Category 5 storm, i.e. that 1-minute wind speeds were at least 157 mph. However, it was clearly a much less powerful storm than Camille, and arguably many others in recent history.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/deconstructing-the-hype-on-super-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/#more-97356

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Anthony Watts again? He has zero credibility, and he is misleading you.

      The sustained winds at the center of the storm were probably 190-200MPG and peak wind gusts were probably ~235MPH.

      If there was a Category 6 storm, Haiyan/Yolanda would be that.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        You didn’t read it did you.
        If so, what is your specific quibble.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          I know what Anthony Watts says, and he lies. He is a climate change denier, and as such he is not worth listening to.

          I know that the storm was much stronger than you post. Every news source I have heard so far shows that Anthony Watts is still lying.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Gee Neil, why do want to keep your head in the sand? [A reference you might be familiar with, eh?] . The link I posted is not from Mr. Watts which you would clearly see if you clicked through the link.

            But let’s go to NASA and see what they have to say.

            Oh, they measured 128mph winds but estimated winds up to 150mph(due to limitations of their measurement).

            Should Mr. Watts expect an apology from Neil for his unfounded accusation? Somehow, I don’t Neil will admit his error.

            “According to the Oceansat-2 data, which was processed by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) using an experimental technique, the storm’s winds peaked at 206 kilometers (128 miles) per hour at the time of measurement—strong enough to devastate the landscape.

            However, it is important to note that the maximum winds were likely stronger than what Oceansat-2 measured, explained Bryan Stiles of JPL. His group’s algorithm averages Oceansat-2 data over a 24 by 24 kilometer (15 by 15 mile) area, which yields a value somewhat lower than the storm’s absolute maximum winds. Stiles estimated that the maximum wind speeds were probably about 20 percent faster—about 240 kilometers (150 miles) per hour—when Oceansat-2 acquired the data, but his team has not yet had time to perform a rigorous analysis.”

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=82375&src=nha

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Was that while it was over the Philippines, or Vietnam?

            http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2578

            The peak winds of Hiayan/Yolanda was ~235MPH.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Look at Masters later post (included in the WUWT link) where he revised down the speeds to an estimated 167mph.

            You guys can’t deal with facts. I don’t understand why this is controversial.

          • Don_B1

            Sure, the NASA estimate was for 9:30 a.m., local time, some FIVE HOURS AFTER Haiyan made landfall (4:40 a.m., local time, as reported by PAGASA (see the Wunderground post http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2573).

            So the lower wind speeds indicated by your NASA data from an Indian satellite should be expected after the typhoon has substantially crossed the Philippines.

            But you have documented the reason for some to make what you call ad hominem attacks on you for your attempt, similar to others you have made in the past, to leave out data, in this case the time of the observation, that is necessary to make an accurate assessment of your argument.

            I only regret that I did not have the time today to catch it sooner.

            But everyone should look at the graph, also from Wunderground, here:

            http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2578

            Please also check the chart showing the highest wind speeds at landfall which shows Haiyan at the top of the chart, based on data from the National Hurricane Center.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Wow!!! I can’t imagine a more boring topic. It appears that both you and Dr. Masters are rooting for Yolanda to be the strongest storm ever. Me? I could care less. I’m more concerned with the human suffering.

            BTW — I don’t know where Master’s get his numbers but the NOAA estimate Camille had 200mph winds at landfall and the Philippines weather agency estimated ground wind speeds at about 150mph — consistent with the barometric pressure relative to other super storms. Also, Masters appears to ‘back off’ his 11/11 estimate of 167mph wind speeds at land fall.

            Again, why does this really matter?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            btw Don, how would you react if someone called you a “pathetic hack”?

          • Don_B1

            Where have I done that?

      • HonestDebate1

        “Probably”?!

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Also MPG?

          What Neil doesn’t realize is several news organizations made errors translating from kph to mph as they were preparing to hype the storm and as Mark Twain would say it spread around the world at light speed. Bigger is better for the news media. Corrections on page C34.

          NASA measured the ACTUAL speed as I pointed out below.

    • nj_v2

      Hahahahaha!

      Homewood with a bunch of dubious, prevaricating smog on whattsuphisa**.

      As usual, you are utterly clueless on what constitutes verifiable information vs. the disinformative, unsubstantiated blather thrown up by hacks and shills.

      http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2573

      [[ "Super Typhoon Haiyan has made landfall. According to PAGASA, Haiyan came ashore at 4:40 am local time (20:40 UTC) November 7, 2013 near Guiuan, on the Philippine island of Samar. Fourty minutes before landfall, Guiuanreported sustained 10-minute average winds of 96 mph, with a pressure of 977 mb. Contact has since been lost with the city. Three hours before landfall, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) assessed Haiyan’s sustained winds at 195 mph, gusting to 235 mph, making it the 4th strongest tropical cyclone in world history. Satellite loops show that Haiyan weakened only slightly, if at all, in the two hours after JTWC’s advisory, so the super typhoon likely made landfall with winds near 195 mph. The next JTWC intensity estimate, for 00Z UTC November 8, about three hours after landfall, put the top winds at 185 mph. Averaging together these estimates gives a strength of 190 mph an hour after landfall. Thus,Haiyan had winds of 190 - 195 mph at landfall, making it the strongest tropical cyclone on record to make landfall in world history. The previous record was held by the Atlantic's Hurricane Camille of 1969, which made landfall in Mississippi with 190 mph winds." ]]

      http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/western-pacific/2013/Typhoon-Haiyan

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Oh nj, another unsubstantiated and ad hominen attack. I challenge you to find any specific problem with that wuwt post. It wasn’t controversial. You clearly didn’t read it. In fact, they also use Dr. Jeff Masters as a primary source but their use of Masters is later and more up to date than your quote.

        But if you want to continue to look foolish take it up with the NASA whose data I posted below.

        • nj_v2

          Really, you’re just a pathetic hack. You and your lame denialist cohorts continue to cherry pick bits of data here and there from whatever source your right-wing disinfo echo chambers generate, with no understanding of the bigger picture.

          On any given day, NASA is either the former home of extreme warmist Hanson, or now, a source of info that casts doubt on the notion that more extreme storms are resulting from the conditions created by global climate change.

          In your desperate, lame grasping for any little bit that supports the denialist meme, you now use NASA as a source, simply because there’s some minor point of uncertainty as to the estimated, highest wind speed.

          NASA regards anthropogenic climate change a a given (something the denialist clown posse here denies even exists), and while there is no clear certainty as to all the likely consequences of this, NASA continues to express support for the hypotheses that warming is capable of increasing the likelihood of more powerful, larger storms; again something which you and your denialist hacks continue to deny.

          So when you dishonestly use NASA to support your bogus, ignorant positions, yeah, i attack and ridicule you.

          http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201303_storms/

          In a Warming World, Storms May Be Fewer but Stronger

          By Adam Voiland, NASA Earth Observatory, March 2013

          “But the study of storminess and climate has begun to mature, says Del Genio, and a consensus is emerging: for several types of storms, global warming may prime the atmosphere to produce fewer but stronger storms.”

          http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/moist_convection.html

          NASA Study Predicts More Severe Storms With Global Warming

          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php

          “Climate change may not be responsible for the recent skyrocketing cost of natural disasters, but it is very likely that it will impact future catastrophes. Climate models provide a glimpse of the future, and while they do not agree on all of the details, most models predict a few general trends. First, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will probably boost temperatures over most land surfaces, though the exact change will vary regionally. More uncertain—but possible—outcomes of an increase in global temperatures include increased risk of drought and increased intensity of storms, including tropical cyclones with higher wind speeds, a wetter Asian monsoon, and, possibly, more intense mid-latitude storms.”

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Gee, you are so embarrassed that YOU changed the subject.

            You could have gone the other route and admit your error.

            So much for keeping it classy.

  • harverdphd

    Gregg was right…Obamacare is a train wreck.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Keep the metaphor on topic.

      Try: Obamacare is a cat5 disaster.

  • hennorama

    A source for sea level trends, from NOAA:

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/

  • nj_v2

    WMO statement on 2013 climate status:

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_981_EN.html

    “Geneva, 13 November 2013 – The year 2013 is currently on course to be among the top ten warmest years since modern records began in 1850, according to the World Meteorological Organization. The first nine months, January to September, tied with 2003 as the seventh warmest such period on record, with a global land and ocean surface temperature of about 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 1961–1990 average.”

  • andrewgarrett

    Anybody else calling out Greenpeace over their destruction of a Filipino rice field in August? For some bizarre reason rich world Greenpeace doesn’t want Filipino scientists involved in Filipino agriculture. For some bizarre reason Greenpeace doesn’t care that low lying island nations need to increase crop yields, improve their people’s nutrition, and work on developing salt tolerant rice. Meanwhile, the sea rises and the world’s population grows to 10 billion.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 18, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a nationally televised question-and-answer session in Moscow on Thursday, April 17, 2014. President Vladimir Putin has urged an end to the blockade of Moldova’s separatist province of Trans-Dniester. Trans-Dniester, located in eastern part of Moldova on border with Ukraine, has run its own affairs without international recognition since a 1992 war. Russian troops are stationed there.  (AP)

Deadly clashes in Eastern Ukraine. A white supremacist rocks Kansas City. The Marathon bombing anniversary. And Bloomberg on guns. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Apr 18, 2014
This undated photo provided by NASA on April 2, 2014 shows Saturn's moon Enceladus. The "tiger stripes" are long fractures from which water vapor jets are emitted. Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of the moon, they announced Thursday, April 3, 2014. Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. (AP)

Oceans in Space. The new discovery on a moon of Saturn, and the possibility of life there.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 18, 2014
This undated photo provided by NASA on April 2, 2014 shows Saturn's moon Enceladus. The "tiger stripes" are long fractures from which water vapor jets are emitted. Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of the moon, they announced Thursday, April 3, 2014. Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. (AP)

Oceans in Space. The new discovery on a moon of Saturn, and the possibility of life there.

 
Apr 18, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a nationally televised question-and-answer session in Moscow on Thursday, April 17, 2014. President Vladimir Putin has urged an end to the blockade of Moldova’s separatist province of Trans-Dniester. Trans-Dniester, located in eastern part of Moldova on border with Ukraine, has run its own affairs without international recognition since a 1992 war. Russian troops are stationed there.  (AP)

Deadly clashes in Eastern Ukraine. A white supremacist rocks Kansas City. The Marathon bombing anniversary. And Bloomberg on guns. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
The Week In Seven Soundbites: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Holy week with an unholy shooter. South Koreans scramble to save hundreds. Putin plays to the crowd in questioning. Seven days gave us seven sounds.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Space moon oceans, Gabriel García Márquez and the problems with depressing weeks in the news. Also: important / unnecessary infographics that help explain everyone’s favorite 1980′s power ballad.

More »
Comment
 
Some Tools And Tricks For College Financial Aid
Thursday, Apr 17, 2014

Some helpful links and tools for navigating FAFSA and other college financial aid tools.

More »
Comment