Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Few Simple Truths About Katrina

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Few Simple Truths About Katrina

    Get Off His Back (Updated)
    By Ben Stein
    Published 9/2/2005 11:59:59 PM

    ***UPDATED: Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005, 2:13 p.m.***

    A few truths, for those who have ears and eyes and care to know the truth:

    1.) The hurricane that hit New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama was an astonishing tragedy. The suffering and loss of life and peace of mind of the residents of those areas is acutely horrifying.

    2.) George Bush did not cause the hurricane. Hurricanes have been happening for eons. George Bush did not create them or unleash this one.

    3.) George Bush did not make this one worse than others. There have been far worse hurricanes than this before George Bush was born.

    4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China, India, and Brazil. In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery.

    5.) George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.

    6.) George Bush did not cause gangsters to shoot at rescue helicopters taking people from rooftops, did not make gang bangers rape young girls in the Superdome, did not make looters steal hundreds of weapons, in short make New Orleans into a living hell.

    7.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.

    8.) George Bush is rushing every bit of help he can to New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama as soon as he can. He is not a magician. It takes time to organize huge convoys of food and now they are starting to arrive. That they get in at all considering the lawlessness of the city is a miracle of bravery and organization.

    9.) There is not the slightest evidence at all that the war in Iraq has diminished the response of the government to the emergency. To say otherwise is pure slander.

    10.) If the energy the news media puts into blaming Bush for an Act of God worsened by stupendous incompetence by the New Orleans city authorities and the malevolence of the criminals of the city were directed to helping the morale of the nation, we would all be a lot better off.

    11.) New Orleans is a great city with many great people. It will recover and be greater than ever. Sticking pins into an effigy of George Bush that does not resemble him in the slightest will not speed the process by one day.

    12.) The entire episode is a dramatic lesson in the breathtaking callousness of government officials at the ground level. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten her way and they were in charge of your health care.

    God bless all of those dear people who are suffering so much, and God bless those helping them, starting with George Bush.

    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8693

  • #2
    That article does put things in perspective. Unfortunately, in this era of media reporting based on speculation, exaggeration and generally dovetailing with each other over the issue of the day, not to mention the politicization of everyday life the fact that while the fact-finding and finger-pointing recriminations will be exacerbated by the media. A significatn accomplishment was made by the US.

    Since the collapse of the levees on tuesday afternoon, within two days, a 24-48 hour concerted effort by US forces and governmental organizations had been planned and executed, evacuating almost 100,000 people from a destroyed, isolated metropolis.

    While some of the world engaged in shadenfreude, recrimination and even cries of joy as expressions of the hatred and resentment by proxy of the United States, and specifically, the President, we got to work.

    Cries of "insufficent manpower due to the war in Iraq" were unfounded. By Sunday night, at last report, 15,000 forces were in the New Orleans area and 30,000 were expected to arrive by Monday night.

    The footage of Saturday night was impressive; watching waves of hundreds of helicopters airlifting thousand of of the city was in its own way a catharsis.

    I went through Hurricane Andrew. That storm destroyed my house, as well as the 40-mile area south of Miami in 1992. It took the Federal Government nine days to establish a presence. The federal government managed to stabilize the situation in the entire gulf region, while simultaneously conductiond SAR, fighting criminals in the streets of New Orleans and media criticism within 2 days from Tuesday.

    Comment


    • #3
      In news corpses, and not began to show drowned men, and died from famine and not received the help. Those who work on direct inclusions from Superdoum
      (Turned a concentration camp filled by hungry and malicious people), speak on air already without any political correctness. On FOX the correspondent from the helicopter has seen dying on the cut off site of highway of refugees, has informed where follows, but it "have politely sent".. The Correspondent shaked: " Ponder! Right now, in the United States America, in two miles from here, on road die people and nobody helps them! " On horizon around on sticking out roofs of lorries, any sheds
      People cost and lay and to wave hands. A question to the officer: " you now will go it
      To help? " The answer: " Is not present, there to go too dangerously. The order to remain with us here. "

      Know, what will be further?
      And further city will drain, corpses will burn without an identification,
      (Especially with bullet wounds from the regular army and police weapon),
      For WASP will assist, Negros will disseminate.
      And then - in couple of years - Spielberg will remove expensive film about rescue of private soldier XXX,
      (With the budget in 10 times more, than it was necessary for strengthening the Dam)
      And in opinion of all world forever there will be a Feat of American People.
      And unruly, reminding to public as as was actually - will declare not patriots.
      Both enemies of Freedom. And enemies of the Democratic Choice.
      It is the forecast, only the forecast....

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Rihard
        In news corpses, and not began to show drowned men, and died from famine and not received the help.
        You can't starve to death in 4 days.

        Those who work on direct inclusions from Superdoum
        (Turned a concentration camp filled by hungry and malicious people), speak on air already without any political correctness. On FOX the correspondent from the helicopter has seen dying on the cut off site of highway of refugees, has informed where follows, but it "have politely sent".. The Correspondent shaked: " Ponder! Right now, in the United States America, in two miles from here, on road die people and nobody helps them! " On horizon around on sticking out roofs of lorries, any sheds
        People cost and lay and to wave hands. A question to the officer: " you now will go it
        To help? " The answer: " Is not present, there to go too dangerously. The order to remain with us here. "

        Know, what will be further?
        And further city will drain, corpses will burn without an identification,
        (Especially with bullet wounds from the regular army and police weapon),
        For WASP will assist, Negros will disseminate.
        And then - in couple of years - Spielberg will remove expensive film about rescue of private soldier XXX,
        (With the budget in 10 times more, than it was necessary for strengthening the Dam)
        And in opinion of all world forever there will be a Feat of American People.
        And unruly, reminding to public as as was actually - will declare not patriots.
        Both enemies of Freedom. And enemies of the Democratic Choice.
        It is the forecast, only the forecast....
        huh?

        Comment


        • #5
          Yea verily the mage spoke unto me with one tongue, and that tongue was gibberish
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • #6
            Steyn on Katrina:

            The Big Easy rocked, but didn't roll
            By Mark Steyn
            (Filed: 06/09/2005)

            Readers may recall my words from a week ago on the approaching Katrina: "We relish the opportunity to rise to the occasion. And on the whole we do. Oh, to be sure, there are always folks who panic or loot. But most people don't, and many are capable of extraordinary acts of hastily improvised heroism."



            What the hell was I thinking? I should be fired for that. Well, someone should be fired. I say that in the spirit of the Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, the Anti-Giuliani, a Mayor Culpa who always knows where to point the finger.

            For some reason, I failed to consider the possibility that the panickers would include Hizzoner the Mayor and the looters would include significant numbers of the police department, though in fairness I wasn't the only one. As General Blum said at Saturday's Defence Department briefing: "No one anticipated the disintegration or the erosion of the civilian police force in New Orleans."

            Indeed, they eroded faster than the levees. Several hundred cops are reported to have walked off the job. To give the city credit, it has a lovely "Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan" for hurricanes. The only flaw in the plan is that the person charged with putting it into effect is the mayor. And he didn't.

            But I don't want to blame any single figure: the anti-Bush crowd have that act pretty much sewn up. I'd say New Orleans's political failure is symptomatic of a broader failure.

            I got an e-mail over the weekend from a US Army surgeon just back in Afghanistan after his wedding. Changing planes in Kuwait for the final leg to Bagram and confronted by yet another charity box for Katrina relief, he decided that this time he'd pass. "I'd had it up to here," he wrote, "with the passivity, the whining, and the when-are-they-going-to-do-something blame game."

            Let it be said that no one should die in a 100F windowless attic because he fled upstairs when the flood waters rose and now can't get out. But, in his general characterisation of "the Big Easy", my correspondent is not wrong. The point is, what are you like when it's not so easy?

            Congressman Billy Tauzin once said of his state: "One half of Louisiana is under water and the other half is under indictment." Last week, four fifths of New Orleans was under water and the other four fifths should be under indictment - which is the kind of arithmetic the state's deeply entrenched kleptocrat political culture will have no trouble making add up.

            Consider the signature image of the flood: an aerial shot of 255 school buses neatly parked at one city lot, their fuel tanks leaking gasoline into the urban lake. An enterprising blogger, Bryan Preston, worked out that each bus had 66 seats, which meant that the vehicles at just that one lot could have ferried out 16,830 people. Instead of entrusting its most vulnerable citizens to the gang-infested faecal hell of the Superdome, New Orleans had more than enough municipal transport on hand to have got almost everyone out in a couple of runs last Sunday.

            Why didn't they? Well, the mayor didn't give the order. OK, but how about school board officials, or the fellows with the public schools transportation department, or the guy who runs that motor pool, or the individual bus drivers? If it ever occurred to any of them that these were potentially useful evacuation assets, they kept it to themselves.

            So the first school bus to escape New Orleans and make it to safety in Texas was one that had been abandoned on a city street. A party of sodden citizens, ranging from the elderly to an eight-day-old baby, were desperate to get out, hopped aboard and got teenager Jabbor Gibson to drive them 13 hours non-stop to Houston. He'd never driven a bus before, and the authorities back in New Orleans may yet prosecute him. For rescuing people without a permit?

            My Afghanistan army guy's observations on "passivity" reminded me of something I wrote for this paper a few days after 9/11, about how the airline cabin was the embodiment of the "culture of passivity". It's the most regulated environment most of us ever enter.

            So on three of those flights everyone faithfully followed the Federal Aviation Administration's 1970s hijack procedures until it was too late. On the fourth plane, Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, Thomas Burnett, Mark Bingham and other forgotten heroes figured out what was going on and rushed their hijackers, preventing the plane from proceeding to its target - believed to be the White House or Congress. On a morning when the government did nothing for those passengers, those passengers did something for the government.

            On 9/11, the federal government failed the people; last week, local and state government failed the people. On 9/11, they stuck to the 30-year-old plan; last week, they didn't bother implementing the state-of-the-art 21st-century plan. Why argue about which level of bureaucracy you prefer to be let down by?

            My mistake was to think that the citizenry of the Big Easy would rise to the great rallying cry of Todd Beamer: "Are you ready, guys? Let's roll!" Instead, the spirit of the week was summed up by a gentleman called Mike Franklin, taking time out of his hectic schedule of looting to speak to the Associated Press: "People who are oppressed all their lives, man, it's an opportunity to get back at society."

            Unlike 9/11, when the cult of victimhood was temporarily suspended in honour of the many real, actual victims under the rubble, in New Orleans everyone claimed the mantle of victim, from the incompetent mayor to the "oppressed" guys wading through the water with new DVD players under each arm.

            Welfare culture is bad not just because, as in Europe, it's bankrupting the state, but because it enfeebles the citizenry, it erodes self-reliance and resourcefulness.

            New Orleans is a party town in the middle of a welfare swamp and, like many parties, it doesn't look so good when someone puts the lights up. I'll always be grateful to a burg that gave us Louis Armstrong and Louis Prima, and I'll always love Satch's great record of Do You Know What it Means to Miss New Orleans? But, after this last week, I'm not sure I would.
            News: We can force people to quit city, say police
















            © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms & Conditions of reading.
            Commercial information. Privacy and Cookie Policy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Leader
              Get Off His Back (Updated)
              By Ben Stein
              Published 9/2/2005 11:59:59 PM

              ***UPDATED: Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005, 2:13 p.m.***


              4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China, India, and Brazil. In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery.


              http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8693

              Most scientists in the world agree that global warming is a fact.
              Glaciers disappear. Artic Ice is melting. Species /forests / animals are miggrating north. The permafrost in Siberia is melting for the first time in 10th thousands of years.

              All this is/has been already forecasted by the computer modells of these scientists. There are always single scientists disagreeing with the opinion of the mayority but I think you will be hard pressed to name many respectable scientists oraganisations who disagree with the fact of global warming.


              There are many factors to consider. How much CO2 and other gases are dumped in the oceans etc. many different opinions regarding how fast and how much global temperature will rise. The "Münchener Rückversicherer" the biggest or one of the biggest insurance companies in the world considers global warming as one of the biggest threats for insurance companies. Bigger then aids , terrorism combined.

              limate changes happened in the past.Yes . The problem this time is that these changes usally take longer and fast changes always have been a dissaster for many species in the past.

              Sorry to tell you the worst polluter in the world is the US simply due to its striong economy its uses most of the energy worldwide. I think its something between 25-33% of the worldwide energy usage.

              Comment


              • #8
                "Most scientists in the world agree that global warming is a fact. "

                And most of them also think it's a natural occurance.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by M21Sniper
                  "Most scientists in the world agree that global warming is a fact. "

                  And most of them also think it's a natural occurance.
                  Sniper I am always willing to learn if you can show me that "most" scientists believe this process is a natural occurance.


                  If you are interessted in some reading I think the link is a good start.



                  Global warming /BBC

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well i will attempt to answer you without resorting to numerous links just using common sense. We'll see how that goes, and go from there.

                    Q: How often is there an Ice age on this planet?

                    A: Every 10,000-20,000 years(give or take)

                    Q: What do you call the period subsequent to, but prior to the next, ice age?

                    That's right Sombra....we call that GLOBAL WARMING.

                    If there was no natural global warming the whole planet would be a ball of solid ice.

                    Global warming is NATURAL, and NECCESARY.

                    As far as your link, let's take a look at one of the quoted 'experts' contained therein:

                    "Kyoto remains the bedrock of any credible strategy"
                    Professor Michael Grubb, The Carbon Trust

                    Someone should tell mr. Grubb that the model the Kyoto accords was based on WAS TOTALLY DISCREDITED by the scientific community.

                    Therefore, Mr. Grubb is a moron, and no one should listen to anything he's saying...including you.

                    The final thing you need to realize is that the Climate WILL change, whether we want it to or not.

                    There's an ice age coming, it's already overdue....and nothing any of us says or does is going to change that, end of story.
                    Last edited by Bill; 08 Sep 05,, 19:05.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ON the 'Hockey stick model', that is the basis for Kyoto:

                      "The first, the hockey stick model often cited by the IPCC, which shows centuries of no rise in warming with a sudden increase as we started the massive use of fossil fuels has been effectively discredited by Hans Von Storch and others and also by Macintyre and McKitrick who demonstrated that the model was so designed that whatever data is fed into it ends up with a hockey stick curve.
                      Next, the IPCC's future scenarios are based on economic forecasts. These have been convincingly shown by David Henderson and Ian Castles, two eminent economists, to be flawed. It is likely that they exaggerate future emissions of greenhouse gases. The cavalier dismissal of this careful critique by the panel's president shows him to be a partisan advocate and not an objective chairman. He also likened Lomborg to Hitler. He does not inspire confidence."
                      ~Lord Taverne, British House of Lords.
                      http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr..._politics.html

                      "Science is widely viewed as authoritative and legitimate, so everyone wants the imprimatur of science on their side. From this perspective the battle over climate science is a battle for standing, with little connection to the substantive connections of the scientific debates and practical decision making. In other words, the battle is over who gets to decide what action we take on climate change and not what actions we should take. This battle for political supremacy is most visible on the rival WWW sites that have sprung up to join the battle over the hockey stick (see RealClimate and ClimateAudit.)"
                      ~Pielke Jr., R., Climatologist

                      "I've been a professional scientist for over thirty years and as far as I can tell climate change/global warming is policy masquerading as science. The policy is anti-development and redistribution of resources from the wealthier to the poorer nations. The "hockey stick" is a tool to push the policy. The models are another tool to the same end. It doesn't matter that they have no predictive power and don't agree with each other at any level of detail except to "forecast" catastrophic warming. The clear sign that this is policy and not science is the unwillingness to countenance any cause other than CO2 as a possible source for changing climate, e.g., the sun."

                      http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...e_hockey_.html


                      "This is just a continuation of the (now discredited) doomsayers from the 1960's and 1970's that began with the Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich, and the rest. The sad part about it is that is impossible to be really scientific and do independent experiments that would put a stake through the heart of the whole nonsense as was done with cold fusion.

                      As for your questions, the hockey stick, even if true, does not establish the source of the warming. It can only claim to be a measure of temperature over the past thousand years. Without knowing the cause, there is no justifiable course of action. "In the case of climate change it is very straightforward that the incessant emission of greenhouse gases should provide reason for concern." Maybe, maybe not. There is good evidence that the CO2 level in the atmosphere was as much as 10x higher at earlier times in the earth's existence. Life did fine and we're here. If the scientific case can't be made of a direct and very strong connection between CO2 levels and genuine catastrophe then there is nothing to be concerned about and certainly nothing to be done.

                      As time goes by, the case has gotten weaker and weaker. For example Hansen has kept lowering his estimate of GW to the point where the temperature in 2100 might be as warm as it was during the Medieval Maximum. Roman times were even warmer. Is that something to worry about?

                      The whole issue has diverted attention from real environmental problems that can be addressed in practical ways: pollution; energy conservation; habitat destruction. I'm sure you can think of others. These are genuine problems that don't rely on doubtful models and uncertain science, they exist. Policy makers should not make policy based on "fake but accurate" science.

                      In a purely layman's way I pursued the same proof of global warming (and ozone depletion), at least as far as the internet allows access to prime documents. Once one shears their way through the rather meaniningless mass media layer, one comes the press release layer. Reading endless press releases, one after another, one finds they are bereft of proof as well. Whether they were trying to keep it simple for mass consumption, or proof was never at hand, I don't know.

                      Then one tracks back to the leanest layer - the studies themselves. Setting aside native symbology, one can absorb the gist and one can rarely discern anything approaching proof, it's mostly self generated conclusions based on the a priori assertion (they basically get what they are searching for in the first place). One also finds the language MUCH more conditional in the studies than one ever finds in the press releases. Whether that's the fault of the scientists or the eager media, who knows, but I don't recall scientists being to adamant that people need to use caution with the information presented. Personally I believe it was part of the mechanism.

                      What man-caused global warming boiled down to was self designed models with a dozen or more variables to simulate the 'real world'. They play with the variables in these speculative models until they could have enough fodder for one of their press releases, and the gates were thus opened.

                      The desire to conspire in such a manner is borne from two connected desires, a quasi-theocratic edifice for such people to place themselves in, and to ultimately control resources. Collectivists attempted for decades to control labor and largely failed, so they changed tack and went after resources (the other main component of the economy). The goal is to be master of one or the other, or both. Hysterical environmentalism is simply the new outlet for 'secular' theologians and its particular brand of superstition.

                      I'll never forget reading the transcript of congressional testimony with a famous global warming scientist, who after all his talk reduced the argument to "well, we may not have concrete proof, but what if we're right?" Pure superstition."
                      Posted by Brad Dexter at December 16, 2004 02:44 PM

                      --------------------------------------------------------------

                      "The most interesting question is what drives Kyoto in face of the evidence? Conspiracy, corruption or sheer stupidity?

                      Kyoto dispute involves a dialogue of the deaf in which prejudice and stylised facts rule.

                      Current fluctuations in climate are well within past experience and indicate sporadic warming since the last little ice age some 18,000 years ago. Carbon gas levels have been much higher long before industrialisation. And CO2 is not a pollutant but a fertilizer.

                      There is no clear evidence of warming in the past quarter-century from weather satellites and balloons: Many experienced scientists think any warming will be modest-less than 1 degree by 2100 - and manageable without Kyoto. The probability that climate is affected by GHG rather than sunspot activity is too low to justify paying insurance by limiting emissions on the precautionary principle.

                      The cost of Kyoto will be crippling at a time when economic growth promises to be elusive. China and India with half worlds population,major sources of future pollution, are not involved.

                      Prediction of catastrophic warming depends on models driven by contestable assumptions and untested science hypothesis. The Hockey Stick model describing long term relatively stable temperature and sharp rise in last decades of 20 Cen is now discredited.

                      Those who believe imputed warming do not agree on its costs and benefits or on spatial and economic effects of any change in sea levels. No need to compare alternative ways of spending Kyoto costs which are massive with benefits negligible if any.

                      Faced with dispute, scientists invoke the Consensus Defence. If science were driven by consensus we would still exist in a pre-Gallilean world.
                      Posted by Dr Alister McFarquhar at December 16, 2004 02:44 PM"

                      ------------------------------------------------

                      "Having studied Geography at Oxford University from 1994-1998 this populist book (together with the Sceptical Environmentalist and the Copenhagen Concensus) have come as a breath of fresh air...

                      A significant part of my course was devoted to environmental science specifically and the interpretation of data in a non-biased fashion generally. My studies there have increasingly sat in stark contrast to the ever increasing hysteria over environmental "problems" I have noted following the completion of my course.

                      Whatever "common knowledge" may indicate, there is a severe lack of data and concensus over the existance/causes of human-induced global warming, not to mention the timescales it might occur over, or the desirability of it's results.

                      The resources already being ploughed into carbon-reduction measures given this lack of data or concensus are nothing short of scandelous and a dark day for rationality and human progress."
                      Posted by Nigel at December 16, 2004 02:46 PM

                      http://www.adamsmith.org/mt/54sdfsfe...i?entry_id=925

                      Arctic IceCapades.

                      The recent report Artic Climate Impact Assessment has raised the temperatures of those calling for drastic action to reduce CO2 levels…especially those calling for action by the United States.

                      The report, available on line, repeats much of the information contained in the IPCC report and complements it with narrative and illustrations designed to create an emotional response. Projections contained in the report are derived from computer models.

                      At issue, however, is whether the science supports the report’s conclusions Since much of the information contained in the IPCC report has either been discredited or questioned, e.g. the Mann Hockey Stick, and that computer models have proven to be unreliable for forecasting climate change, the entire report needs careful analysis before accepting the report’s conclusions.

                      The essence of the report is that arctic ice is melting because of CO2 and that the recent increases in temperatures confirm this thesis.

                      The following illustration (from the book Meltdown by Michaels) shows the temperatures for the North Polar region over the last century: warming from the mid 1920’s to mid 1960’s is greater than has recently occurred.



                      The integrated warming early in the last century--before humans could change the climate very much--is larger than current warming.

                      It should be noted that much of the recent warming has been in the winter when temperatures are well below freezing so that ice can not melt as the result of the warming.

                      In addition, extensive measurements of ice thickness have shown no trend in ice becoming thinner: they have shown great variability in terms of ice thinning and then thickening.

                      CO2 Science Magazine reported the results of one such study as follows:

                      Laxon et al. (2003) used an eight-year time series (1993-2001) of Arctic sea-ice thickness data derived from measurements of ice freeboard made by radar altimeters carried aboard ERS-1 and 2 satellites to determine the mean thickness and variability of Arctic sea ice between latitudes 65 and 81.5°N, which region covers the entire circumference of the Arctic Ocean, including the Beaufort, Chukchi, East Siberian, Kara, Laptev, Barents and Greenland Seas. These real-world observations served a number of purposes:

                      1.

                      They revealed "an interannual variability in ice thickness at higher frequency, and of greater amplitude, than simulated by regional Arctic models,"
                      2.

                      They undermined "the conclusion from numerical models that changes in ice thickness occur on much longer timescales than changes in ice extent," and
                      3.

                      They showed that "sea ice mass can change by up to 16% within one year," which finding "contrasts with the concept of a slowly dwindling ice pack, produced by greenhouse warming."

                      Laxon et al. thus concluded that "errors are present in current simulations of Arctic sea ice, stating in their closing sentence that "until models properly reproduce the observed high-frequency, and thermodynamically driven, variability in sea ice thickness, simulations of both recent, and future, changes in Arctic ice cover will be open to question”.

                      The voluminous content of the146 page report Artic Climate Impact Assessment cannot be thoroughly evaluated in a short news story: And the full scientific portion of the report won't be published until 2005.

                      It seems clear, however, that the underpinning of the study -- that arctic ice is melting because of CO2 and that the recent increases in temperatures confirm this thesis -- is suspect, since there was an earlier period (1920 – 1960) when Artic temperatures were higher...before the recent increases in CO2 levels.

                      November 28, 2004

                      The Broken Mann Hockey Stick.

                      A new study by Dr. Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS research center, hammers another nail into the coffin of the already discredited hockey stick generated by M. E. Mann et al.

                      The Mann study purportedly showed a gradual temperature drop from 1000 AD to 1900 AD, then a sharp rise in temperatures over the 20th century; thereby doing away with the little ice age and creating the impression that the sudden rise in temperature was caused by humans.

                      The hockey stick is actually a blending of different temperature proxies (the handle of the hockey stick) grafted onto temperature data for the 20th century for the Northern Hemisphere (the blade of the hockey stick). Twentieth century data for the Southern Hemisphere was ignored; a fact that, by itself, distorts the hockey stick no matter other deficiencies.

                      One of the proxies used by Mann was tree rings. Tree rings pose certain questions since judgments have to be made on whether to use the distance between rings or the width of the ring. Furthermore the rings show an average for a year and do not show winter lows or summer highs.

                      The global coverage of proxies is extremely sparse when compared with the worldwide network of modern temperature stations, not to mention satellite data from the past 30 years.

                      Altogether Mann et al used 112 proxies, most of which only go back to the 1600’s. Only 55 go back beyond 1600 and only 12 extend beyond 1400 AD. This latter group of proxies, only 12 covering a 400 year period, is no better than random numbers.

                      The new study by Dr. von Storch et al worked backwards, and tried to regenerate the computer generated climate records.

                      “In each case, Dr. von Storch said, the method nicely reproduced the last 100 years but sharply underestimated big century-long warm and cool spikes further back in time."

                      The discredited hockey stick was the center piece in the National Geographic’s article on global warming. It is found several times in the IPCC’s reports and is repeatedly referred to in the media.

                      The hockey stick has been proven to be wrong; and this demolishes one of the key pillars supporting global warming.

                      October 24, 2004

                      http://www.tsaugust.org/Global%20War...cles%20Pg2.htm

                      I could literally go on with this for page after page.

                      "Global warming" is a scam, simple as that.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hurricanes Past.

                        The recent spate of hurricanes has given rise to the cry that global warming is causing an increase in severe weather.

                        Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the UN’s Environment Program, said the recent series of hurricanes that have devastated the Caribbean and parts of the United States demonstrate that reducing emissions is even more urgent now.

                        However, a look at the factsover the past century shows that hurricanes have not increased in severity or in frequency during the past 30 years, the period during which global warming is said to have manifested itself.

                        Of the hurricanes that reached the continental United States, there were 90 during the first half of the twentieth century and only 75 during the second half: An average of 7 major hurricanes reached the U.S. during the first half and only 6 during the second half of the century.

                        Table I shows the frequency of all hurricanes and of major hurricanes to reach the U.S. during each decade of the twentieth century.




                        All Category 1-5


                        Major Category 3,4,5

                        1900 -1909
                        15 6
                        1910 -1919 20 8
                        1920 -1929 15 5
                        1930 -1939 17 8
                        1940 -1949 23 8
                        1950 -1959 18 9
                        1960 -1969 15 6
                        1970 -1979 12 4
                        1980 -1989 16 6
                        1990 -1999 14 5

                        Table I



                        Some insurance companies are claiming that global warming has increased the severity of storms as measured by casualty losses. After the ten most costly hurricanes (Table II) are adjusted for population growth and inflation only 2 of the ten were in or after 1969; while six were in the first half of the century.

                        When not adjusted for population growth and inflation 7 of the ten most costly storms occurred in or after 1969. (Andrew 1992, Hugo 1989, Agnes 1972, Betsy 1965, Camille 1969, Diane 1955, Frederic 1979, Floyd 1999, New England 1938, Fran 1996,)

                        The insurance losses are clearly attributable to the increased population affected by the storms and not to the frequency or severity of the storms.



                        Storm


                        year


                        Damage Normalized for population and inflation.

                        ($ US Billions)

                        SE Florida/Alabama


                        1926
                        $87.2

                        Andrew
                        1992 $39.4

                        Texas Galveston
                        1900 $32.1

                        Texas Galveston
                        1915 $27.2

                        SW Florida
                        1944 $20.3

                        New England
                        1938 $20.0

                        SE Florida
                        1928 $16.6

                        Betsy
                        1965 $15.0

                        Donna
                        1960 $14.5

                        Camille
                        1969 $13.2

                        Table II



                        A recent Knight Ridder newspaper story claimed: “If it seems as if more monster hurricanes, such as the soon-to-strike Frances, are swirling off the U.S. coast, you're right. We're in the midst of a record-breaking decade of hurricane activity.”

                        This claim was based on NOAA’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index that only covered the second half of the twentieth century.

                        As can be seen from the above tables, the number and severity of storms were greater in the first half of the twentieth century and, contrary to the claim by the Knight Ridder newspapers, we are not yet in a record breaking decade of hurricane activity.

                        Hurricanes have been the subject of detailed scientific study analyzing data going back several thousand years. These studies all show that there have been fewer hurricanes during warm periods than cold.

                        One recent study demonstrates these findings: “Elsner et al. (2000) developed a history of major hurricane strikes of Bermuda, Jamaica and Puerto Rico, finding far fewer such storms in the last half of the 20th century than in all five of the preceding 50-year periods. From 1701 to 1850, for example, when the earth was locked in the chilling grip of the Little Ice Age, the frequency of major hurricane occurrence was fully 2.8 times greater than it was from 1951 to 1998; and from 1851 to 1950, when the planet was in transition from the Little Ice Age to the Modern Warm Period, it was 2.2 times greater.” (Quoted from CO2Science.org paper; Hurricanes ( Atlantic Ocean - Global Warming Effect) -- Summary.)

                        Source of Hurricane data: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For more information go to: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/index.html

                        October 18, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          M21 Sniper Ice ages are quite recent in Earth history. The main influence factors of Ice ages are still discussed. Some of them are pointing towards certain constellations of the continents necessary to the building of polar ice caps.

                          We know from deep core drilling in the artic, sediments etc. that in the past there have been warmer periods in earth history.

                          It seems that the balance between ice age and an ever increasing global warming is quite fragile . The mayor CO2 dumbs on earth are... Fossil fuel like carbon, oil etc.; CaCO3; the oceans and the areas like the permafrost tundras on Siberia.

                          Major CO2 sources : vulcan activity and the burning from fossil fuel.


                          But even in the past the climate has been much warmer the question is what are the consequences for the lives today. A mayor part of our cities are build near the coastlines of the seas. Huricanes need a water temperature from 26°C to build if you rise the average water temperature you will get more a stronger storms.

                          Modells predict that a certain temperatue water won´t be able to serve as mayor CO2 dump anymore (try it out with a bottle of water with gas and heat it up only a little)
                          Neither the permafrost because it is already melting. The Building of CACo3 takes a long time. Although the building of oil , carbon etc.
                          IMO right now we are releasing more CO2 in the atmosphere as can be consumed elsewhere.

                          If you are looking for planet with a fullscale greenhouse effect look at the venus. Lovely place to live....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Triangulation Raises Global Warming Doubts.

                            Recent scientific papers have helped explain the differences between temperatures taken at ground level and those taken by satellites and balloons: Satellite temperature readings, confirmed by weather balloon readings, show little if any warming in the lower atmosphere (i.e., the region between 5000 and 30,000 feet).

                            The satellite readings have indicated there is little global warming which is contrary to the claims of the IPCC and many NGO’s. Equally disturbing is that the IPCC computer models say that temperatures should increase with altitude; which the satellite readings show is not happening thereby casting a further cloud over the integrity of the IPCC’s computer models.

                            Now, two recent studies have confirmed that economic conditions are influencing the temperature readings at ground level. It has been the ground level readings that the IPCC and alarmists have used to claim there is global warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

                            In May 2003 University of Maryland researchers, Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai, published a paper that showed that half of the temperature increases at ground level are due to urban and other land use changes. This is twice as great an impact as previous estimates based on urbanization alone.

                            Now, Canadian Ross McKitrick, an economist, and Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences, have published a paper showing the linkage between a nation’s GDP growth and warming. The paper had four years of peer review.

                            The paper shows that around “one half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records”. This worldwide study complements and expands on the University of Maryland study that focused on the United States.

                            This triangulation of scientific data (satellite temperature readings, confirmed by weather balloon readings, with ground temperature increases due in large part to economic land use factors) demonstrates that there is little global warming caused by greenhouse gasses.

                            September 12, 2004
                            http://www.tsaugust.org/Global%20War...cles%20Pg2.htm

                            Is any of this getting through to you SOMBRA???

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "M21 Sniper Ice ages are quite recent in Earth history. The main influence factors of Ice ages are still discussed."

                              No they're not.

                              Ice ages predate recorded history by 100s of millions of years.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X