Tag Archives: Climate Change

Ted Cruz is a politician (and a hypocrite)

Republican senator and presidential candidate, Ted Cruz, leapt immediately to the podium in order to command the President to get off his butt and send the Cruz man’s home state, Texas, some disaster relief following devastating floods.

Hypocrite Ted Cruz Begs For Federal Relief Money For Houston Flooding

Ted Cruz, the same Tea Party Senator that voted against aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy because it was “wasteful“, shows off his astonishing hypocrisy by announcing that he will work with Democrats to “stand as one in support of the federal government meeting its statutory obligations.

As noted in the linked piece, when Congress was appropriating funds for FEMA following the Sandy disaster, Cruz demanded cuts in other federal funding must come before spending money on those Yankees.

An article in the NYTimes, noted that the extent of damage due to the Texas flooding could have been mitigated if Texas had followed standard building practices found in other states.

The main challenge to rational planning for flood risk in the country is that private property rights trump even modest limitations on floodplain development,” said Nicholas Pinter, an expert on floods, people and politics at Southern Illinois University, in an email today. “And that sentiment runs deep in Texas. The result is unchecked construction on flood-prone land, up to the present day and in some places even accelerating.”

And now Texans are suffering the consequences of their political choices. I am not gloating over their tragedy but we must understand that hating on governmental regulations does not always provide for a better future.

As Andrew Rivkin writes:

It’s important to get these studies done, but I doubt they’ll have much impact as long as politicians and communities in the region stick with the go-go development mentality that has been so vividly on display.

I see little evidence that leaders in the region have paid attention to the vast volumes of information they already paid for. The websites of Texas agencies responsible for managing water and limiting disaster losses are already full of valuable information clearly laying out the deep hydrological vulnerability in the state.

It is very likely that some of the Texans who were recently ranting about the military’s Jade Helm exercise being little more than a prelude to the secret Muslim Marxist declaring a new socialist kingdom in America, are now among those begging for federal assistance.

Advertisements

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

Those darned scientists! Prof Richard A Muller has been frequently quoted in the past by warming deniers and when he put together a team to study the hundreds of other scientific studies from around the world, it was thought to be a “final blow” against all those Al Gore acolytes and sycophants. The Koch brothers even provided some funding for the work.

The (in)famous Anthony Watts wrote in March of this year, “[i]I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.[/i]” Naturally, a scientific study that he once advocated for is no longer acceptable, as you will read if you click the link. Ah, Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
A major point in the deniers attack on the global warming/climate change reports of the recent past has been the Urban Heat Island effect on temperature records. Dr Muller’s team looked at the matter and found that such effects had been included in the records

There were good reasons for doubt, until now.

What about poor station quality? Again, our statistical methods allowed us to analyze the U.S. temperature record separately for stations with good or acceptable rankings, and those with poor rankings (the U.S. is the only place in the world that ranks its temperature stations). Remarkably, the poorly ranked stations showed no greater temperature increases than the better ones. The mostly likely explanation is that while low-quality stations may give incorrect absolute temperatures, they still accurately track temperature changes.

I hope you see what the study is showing here, scientists who have looked at the issue of climate change are using the change in temps, not the extreme points of temperatures. Also it is change over long periods, decades not years, not daily swings in temperature readings and not new record highs and lows. So when various deniers build igloos in DC during a snow storm  it shows nothing more than an inability to understand what the scientists are saying.

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.

In a pattern seen with the right’s attacks on the President, even when he does what they once advocated, the deniers now say the Muller study is flawed,
Climate Study Does Not Placate Skeptics

Does (deity of your choice) hate Rick Perry?

A perfect synopsis of the Rick Perry situation comes from Tim F. at Balloon-Juice.com

Please, Texas, tell Rick Perry to stop praying.

In April, facing record heat and seven months of drought in his state, Rick Perry took decisive action. He prayed for rain. Five months later Texas is drier, hotter and on fire. This is definitive proof that either:

  • (a) God hates Rick Perry;
  • (b) God belongs to some other faith and praying to Jesus just pisses Him, Her, It or Them off;
  • (c ) the climate in Texas has nothing to do with religion and instead depends on preventable human behavior and has followed a predictable trajectory since Svante Arrhenius first described the greenhouse phenomenon in 1896;
  • (d) in his New Testament big J explicitly points out that his Dad does not dish out favors while you are still alive, but rather you have to wait until you die (plus various whatnot in Revelations) to find out what He thinks of you, and that if you really need something right now then basement cat might take your request; or
  • (e) all of the above.
  • Drought in Texas, Sept 2011

    The Right’s ‘Experts’

    For some odd reason, Politico has now put Chuck Norris on their list of writers. The man is an actor. A not very good actor who found a niche and made a living doing the same character, over and over, with different costumes.

    Now, he pontificates on something he knows nothing about: international arms control.

    He uses recent diplomatic efforts to create a treaty that would work toward reducing cross-border arms trafficking to claim it is simply another effort by the “Kenyan anti-colonialist” to do away with Americans Second Amendment rights. Either he hasn’t bothered to actually read statements made by the Administration or the United Nations or he doesn’t care because he has an agenda.

    International Law Expert Chuck Norris Is (Shockingly) Wrong About UN Arms Treaty

    The leading contender for the Republican nomination, Rick Perry, has about the same level of ‘knowledge’ concerning climate change and the Theory of Evolution as Chuck has about arms control.

    Creationism Hits the Campaign Trail and Exposes Differences in the Field

    On climate change, here’s a video link from the Washington Post: Perry, Bachmann highlight the politics of climate change

    When the right has so many ‘experts’ who have been exposed as charlatans and ignoramuses on so many subjects, why is anyone still listening to them?

    Was the hacker attack on British Climate Research Unit part of a coordinated plan?

    As most people know by now, the computer system of the CRU at England’s East Anglia University suffered a hacker attack and some 3000+ emails were downloaded and then put out into the tubez of teh internets.

    This past week, the Climate Research dept at the University of Victoria in British Columbia announced that they also had been fighting off hackers, so far successfully.

    Break-in targets climate scientist

    Attempts have been made to break into the offices of one of Canada’s leading climate scientists, it was revealed yesterday. The victim was Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and a key contributor to the work of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In one incident, an old computer was stolen and papers were disturbed.

    In addition, individuals have attempted to impersonate technicians in a bid to access data from his office, said Weaver. The attempted breaches, on top of the hacking of files from British climate researcher Phil Jones, have heightened fears that climate-change deniers are mounting a campaign to discredit the work of leading meteorologists before the start of the Copenhagen climate summit tomorrow.

    Just because similar efforts have been made to grab information from climate scientists in the UK and Canada, it does not necessarily mean there is some world-wide conspiracy. It could just as easily be that one successful attack has inspired like-minded people to attempt the same thing.

    If anyone reading this hasn’t found it already, here is a site that presently holds the CRU emails – Link

    The best argument yet on AGW

    from England’s Independent newspaper

    How I wish that the global warming deniers were right

    Every day, I pine for the global warming deniers to be proved right. I loved the old world – of flying to beaches wherever we want, growing to the skies, and burning whatever source of energy came our way. I hate the world to come that I’ve seen in my reporting from continent after continent – of falling Arctic ice shelves, of countries being swallowed by the sea, of vicious wars for the water and land that remains.

    So let’s – for the sake of argument – make an extraordinary and unjustified concession to the deniers. Let’s imagine there was only a 50 per cent chance that virtually all the world’s climate scientists are wrong. Would that be a risk worth taking? Are you prepared to take a 50-50 gamble on the habitability of the planet? Is the prospect of getting our energy from the wind and the waves and the sun so terrible that’s not worth it on even these wildly optimistic odds?

    Imagine you are about to get on a plane with your family. A huge group of qualified airline mechanics approach you on the tarmac and explain they’ve studied the engine for many years and they’re sure it will crash if you get on board. They show you their previous predictions of plane crashes, which have overwhelmingly been proven right. Then a group of vets, journalists, and plumbers tell they have looked at the diagrams and it’s perfectly obvious to them the plane is safe and that airplane mechanics – all of them, everywhere – are scamming you. Would you get on the plane? That is our choice at Copenhagen.

    Johann Hari