In the Past Decade – Extreme Weather Deaths Outnumbered War Casualties

Categories: ,

Safe to say, nothing is so bad that a hurricane can’t make worse. Take an existing problem, toss it around in the wind and smack it with flying debris – it’s certainly not going to improve. Shoddy construction is made worse, communication concerns – made worse, a struggling economy – made worse, disastrous Bush presidency – made worse. And now the wonders of deregulation – the BP Oil Spill – the worst environmental disaster in the history of the U.S. ““ has already found itself in the pathway of early riser Alex, the first official hurricane of this season.

Cartoon by John Darkow - Columbia Daily Tribune (click to reprint)
Cartoon by John Darkow – Columbia Daily Tribune (click to reprint)

Alex shut down drilling and clean-up efforts for a few days until it made landfall in Monterrey, Mexico, missing the marshes of Louisiana. Rain instead has plagued the region. The BP Oil Spill is already a current-carried glob of doom. It’s a mass of toxic sludge submerged in the Northern Hemisphere’s hotbed of hurricanes. As usual, we are at the mercy of the winds. We are the subjects of the impending season of storms that rip through our Gulf Coast every year.

In 2007 during a cable interview, Senator Barbara Boxer said, “One of the very important national security threats we face is climate change.” Warmer waters in the Gulf will promise more hurricanes. Oceans will rise from the melting of glaciers. Heat waves will kill crops and damage industries. Famine, floods, tornadoes, drought, violent storms, fires, tsunamis, disease and unrest? Sure, this could be a concern to the security of the nation.

Now, sacked Hewlett-Packard CEO turned California Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina used the Boxer clip for an attack ad. Carly, in her curious Jodie Foster accent, said in the spot, “Terrorism kills and Barbara Boxer is worried about the weather.”

Then the self-proclaimed fringe to the “lamestream media” and fraction-of-a-term governor Sarah Palin chimed in on Twitter, “BarbBoxer sez ‘greatest security threat’ is WEATHER. Not nukes, or unsustainable debt leading 2 insolvency? Silly Senator, glad theres competition.” [Spaces added.]

Palin is like a militant reformed smoker ““ she quit her job as governor and now has contempt for all who continue the habit of public service. Silly Senator, keeping oaths are for chumps.

Okay, first off: the “weather” is not the “climate.” The difference between weather and climate is length of time. Weather is the immediate information – climate is the big picture. So it’s like trying to discuss a concern about a decade and Carly Fiorina says you’re worrying about an hour. This is why climate change deniers disagree with scientists ““ they’re not using the same measurements. If you believed miles were inches, you’d think eggheads were lying to you to all the time too.

Our climate is changing. And yes, weather is also something which warrants worry: In the last ten years, there have been more Americans who died from extreme weather than U.S. soldiers who died in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined. According to the National Weather Service, during the last decade 5,754 people have died due to weather events such as extreme temperatures, flooding and hurricanes. Compare that death toll with the 5,521 soldiers killed in the two wars we’ve waged since 2001. Truth be told, to date there have been more U.S. lives lost as a result of Hurricane Katrina (estimated 1,800) than there have been U.S. soldiers killed in the war in Afghanistan (1,125).

And as far as Fiorina’s focus on terrorism killing ““ well, an average of 42 Americans die from being struck by lightning every year. As opposed to – well, almost none from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Here’s the problem with the politics of fear and confusion: it confuses what to fear. Is terrorism still a threat? Sure. Should we pursue the elimination of terrorism while ignoring all other concerns because it makes politicians seem tough? No ““ at least not anymore.

This week the National Weather Service issued an excessive heat advisory for the Northeast. Forecasters predict prolonged temperatures exceeding 102 degrees could wreak havoc in cities like New York, D.C. and Philadelphia. Several have already died from the heat. In 1980 during a similar heat wave was responsible for 1,250 deaths.

Why? Because weather kills.

How’s that “worried about the weather-y” thing workin’ for ya?

—–

Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer, editor and columnist for Cagle Cartoons. Follow Tina on Twitter @TinaDupuy.

Want to run Tina’s column in your publication? Contact Cari Dawson Bartley. E-mail [email protected], (800) 696-7561.


Comments

50 responses to “In the Past Decade – Extreme Weather Deaths Outnumbered War Casualties”

  1. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Without doing even a simple Google search, I'd be willing to bet large sums of money there are MANY decades for which The Teenster's thesis holds true. In fact, we can use something as ubiquitous as death by automobile to prove more Americans die in cars in a few months than have been killed in both wars combined.

    But then the thrust of her poorly-supported weekly diatribe is a heavy-handed warning that man is heating up the planet and that we're all in deep peril 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, or maybe 70 or more years down the road. (Funny how this sort of fear mongering isn't fear mongering to the Left.) Unless, of course, we implement something as "helpful" as cap and trade and do so right away quick like a bunny. THEN, we'll be safe. I wonder why she doesn't note how cold the last winter was or how mild the hurricane season turned out to be or that America already reached most of the CO2 emission reduction goals we set for ourselves without any damaging legislation? Well, that would serve to go against her fiercely held ideology, so we'll have none of that.

    Neither side can/should use short-term weather as any sort of "proof" but these make for good red meat articles for whichever side is reading them. Global warming is a term not even John F-ing Kerry will use in public and AlGorithm seems to have retreated deep into his new $9 million mansion in California. Cap and trade or any version thereof is dead. Now let's work together for a sensible energy policy to get us off of fossil fuels somewhere down the road and in the meantime, let's use everything nature has given us to maintain and improve our already high standard of living.

  2. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    "Okay, first off: the “weather” is not the “climate.”"

    True.

    "Our climate is changing."

    Yup. Never stops changing.

    "In the last ten years, there have been more Americans who died from extreme weather than U.S. soldiers who died in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined."

    In the last ten years, there have been more Americans who died from a whole host of things in far greater numbers than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. How about this little diddy:

    Death rate extrapolations for USA for Smoking: 440,000 per year, 36,666 per month, 8,461 per week, 1,205 per day, 50 per hour. (CDC).

    More Americans die, PER WEEK, than in both wars over the last 9 years. That's more American deaths (per year) than died in WWII.

    Seems to me this should be of far greater immediate concern than the rise and fall of the global temperature and dubious 'science'.

  3. TiJonChaos Avatar
    TiJonChaos

    …ok…we always hear "award-winning writer" but they never list what award was won…for all we know it could be for a 3rd grade essay contest about Peter Cottontail…

    BTW, death by illegal aliens in this country is about 8 per day.

  4. geoff Avatar

    ArtW: "the rise and fall of the global temperature and dubious ’science’." Well, maybe if it was "dubious." The thing is, people could stop dying from smoking if they wanted (just have to stop smoking). Deaths due to traffic accidents could be reduced if people learned to drive better, were more careful, if cars & roads were designed better, etc. Global warming could be reduced if we did something about it.

    If you want to continue to think short-term, fine. Keep your head in the sand. Just consider, though, a major drought hitting the American west: no more corn or grain, duststorms, etc. Add to that increased migration from Mexico and further south. Consider milions of Bangladeshis forcing their way into India, looking for land, and Pakistan's interest in protection Muslim "brethren."

    People do have choices, don't they? Including the choice not to ignore the "Just say NO!!!" mantra?

  5. Anthony Ford Avatar
    Anthony Ford

    As Art said above — yep, Tina, the climate is changing. It has since there's been an Earth. Sometimes it gets cooler, and sometimes it gets warmer. It isn't unique to this time period, and it isn't caused by humans. And that's the REAL science, Tina.

  6. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Gee, Cal and Art—-Have you found ONE university or government agency doing the research that denies man-made climate change?

    Oh and have you read all of the conclusions of all the investigators that have looked into the East Anglia thing? NOT ONE of the investigators questions their conclusions.

  7. James II Avatar
    James II

    Fact, the world is warming. Fact, glaciers and ice caps are receding. Fact, ocean levels are rising. Fact, weather is becoming more extreme. Theory, all such facts are caused by human activity; however, the evidence and computer models do support this theory. Consequence if the theory is correct and corrective action not taken? Substantial, perhaps eventual breakdown of political, social, and economic systems. Consequence if theory is incorrect and action is taken to reverse the effects of human activity? Probably a lower standard of living for all but the rich. Consequence if the theory is not correct and natural warming continues, no matter what action we humans take? All the negatives mentioned above become inevitable. So any way you look at the issue, the future is bleak for human kind if warming continues. The age of the humans may not come to an end (at least immediately), but the species will likely suffer great loss of individuals and loss of most basic “needs” for the survivors. Many “rich” folk are prepared to survive such an outcome, but most of us will face the storm without long term provisions and shelter.

  8. ellis Avatar
    ellis

    cal

    how's that 'if i stick my head in the sand and do not see it' thingy workin' for ya.

    cal you can run but you cannot hide from global warming. its exists and though you and i will no doubt have shuffled off this mortal coil before it gets bad, well you and your (misgiuded)friends are always talking about your grandchildren and their offspring inheriting our mistakes, well there it is. they get it. do ya?

  9. John Avatar
    John

    When I first saw the title of this article, I sarcastically figured that George Bush would somehow be brought to blame. Sure enough, third sentence in, he pops up. Ah, the predictable literary paths that the liberals take.

    I agree with Anthony Ford's post….

  10. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Anthony and John—-I challenge you to find ONE university or ONE government agency doing research on the subject that agrees with you.

    BTW—-We've gone through this on this site several times and no one has found even ONE that would support the skeptics. Facts mean nothing to those that don't want what they unanimously say.

  11. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    CAL: A little out of your class, aren't you, punk?? Another inferior vomiting forth his bitter bile.

  12. Glen Avatar
    Glen

    Am not quite sure what the point of the article is. Palin has long been exposed as an ignorant fool. Fiorina was canned for poor judgement in the private sector, hardly a good recommendation for employing her in the public sector.

    Using the threat of human death does not necessarily make much good sense. Killing people may be good or bad, depending on the viewpoint of the beholder. For example, here in New Jersey the deer and the bears may well be of the opinion that it is the human overpopulation that needs to be thinned out, rather than vice versa. Some of my fellow human citizens even seem to share their (deer and bears) opinion.

  13. Doug Avatar
    Doug

    Isn't it interesting that those most opposed to conservation, and saving the planet, call themselves "conservatives"?

  14. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    I hear that Fiorina's claim to fame in the private sector is that she sold off the best part of AT&T and feasted on the profits, and then got canned from HP for similar things.

    As for weather – the climatologists seem to believe the globe is definitely getting weirder, as well as warmer, and no one seems to know what to do about it, if anything.

    As for deaths – I also hear that doctors kill about 300-400,000 people a year in this country alone via their mistakes. Maybe we need legislation on that.

    Perhaps we need real Health Care and less Disease Care.

    I do understand that a lot of Constitutionally aware California-Americans don't particularly like B Boxer because of her stand on the 2nd Amendment, and that is a reasonable concern. But, at least, she's a seasoned Senator.

    Have you noticed that almost all politicians and wanna-be politicians fall mostly in the Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian camps, but vary on individual subjects? They can lean one way on one subject, and the other way on a different subject.

    Where are the actually qualified statesmen? Did they all die after the American Revolution?

    And, just for good measure, if Arizona is really being invaded by immigrants and armed thugs in unmarked black vehicles, why doesn't Gov. Brewer call a state of emergency and activate her Arizona National Guard? Is she playing politics?

  15. Oahu Akbarr Aobam vo Avatar
    Oahu Akbarr Aobam vo

    To paraphrase Guru Glen, the Dook of Joisey: "Tarballs" Obamadinajad has been exposed for 18 months as an ignorant fool. He needs to be canned for poor judgment in the public sector, hardly a good recommendation for employing him as the wannabe intern wee-weed president from hell. Of course, it's Bush's fault that Obamboozle couldn't operate a hot dog stand without three months of intense training on the difference between catsup and mustard…………….It's not God bless Obama, it's God arrest Obama and save the USA!!!! Barry Obumblefumble, the audacity of a dope……………….Afghan body bag tally: The failed "president" of unemployment, surrender, red ink, tarballs; with a wife who in her adult lifetime desperately seeks a reason to be proud of her hubby: 1124 in 18 months! Damn, what a waste of raw military talent, president wet dreams of my father, not Petraeus, whom he and Joey Bite-me chastised big time for failure in the past, should be leading the troops in destroying Afghanistan, not decimating the USA…………………..

  16. rose Avatar
    rose

    I didn't read Tina's article because most of what she writes is pure drivel. Let me just say that in our part of the country it's been substantially COOLER than normal. But I knew the global warmers would have all the answers for the eastern heat wave. They are so disgustingly predictable—-and stupid. .

  17. geoff Avatar

    Doug: "Isn’t it interesting that those most opposed to conservation, and saving the planet, call themselves "conservatives"?

    Yeah. Except in Denmark, apparently, which also seems to be just about the only European nation without a real "Green" party.

  18. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Good Life: "I challenge you to find ONE university or ONE government agency doing research on the subject that agrees with you."

    Ugh! This again? I returned a challenge to you: Find one university or government agency that is NOT being funded for their 'Global Warming' research . . . that will be the ONE you are looking for. Yes, there is plenty of money to be made on the Global-Warming Train.

    "Oh and have you read all of the conclusions of all the investigators that have looked into the East Anglia thing? NOT ONE of the investigators questions their conclusions."

    Oh, and did you notice who the "investigators" were? What a joke.

  19. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    How about 700 international scientists? They can't all be kooks.

    U. S. Senate Minority Report:

    More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

    Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009

    Update: December 22, 2008: More Prominent Scientists Join Senate Report

    Update: January 28, 2009: James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

    Update: March 17, 2009: 59 Scientists Joint Senate Report

  20. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Investigation Into Climategate Inquiries Announced

    Wednesday, 07 July 2010 15:17 Dr. Benny Peiser.

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation has criticised the Independent Climate Change Email Review for a lack of openness and transparency in its inquiry. In response, the GWPF has announced that it has commissioned its own investigation into the way the three Climategate inquiries have been set up, how they were conducted an how they arrived at their conclusions.

    The investigation will be conducted by Andrew Montford. The findings of the report will be published at the end of August.

    Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation said that the conclusions of the Russell inquiry are unlikely to restore public confidence in climate science.

    He welcomed the report's condemnation of the University of East Anglia's "consistent pattern" of failure to adhere to freedom of information requests which reinforces today's judgement by the Information Commissioner that the university had breached the Freedom of Information Act.

    "There is clearly strong evidence of mishandling of the requests and strong criticism of the university's failure to provide data and information. I don't think the university can just claim that this is a vindication."

    Dr Peiser added that the issue of credibility and transparency in climate science would not go away with this report. (GWPF)

  21. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    who the “investigators” were—-The British government among others. If I remember correctly, we are up to 5 investigations all of which said they didn't deal with harassment well but that didn't effect the results.

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a registered, educational charity and think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming————Oh Yea, This is an OBJECTIVE source.

    700 International Scientists——What science? Is this like the "scientists" that were against evolution where it was found that not one was in biology? Then the biologists found 10 times as many in biology just named "Steve". Science is a big area. No one is an expert in every area. Of course, you have written off EVERY climate scientist because not ONE agrees with you. If they say what you WANT to hear they are an expert, if they disagree with you—-Even if it is EVERY scientist in the field—–they must be wrong.

    failure to provide data and information.——We've gone over this. People that wanted to hinder their research sent in thousands of requests for exactly the same information, all of which was available with an internet search. They didn't have time or staff to personally answer all of the requests of a harassment campaign and became frustrated. In that frustration they said things they shouldn't. But it was because of an organized harassment not because the askers really wanted the information.

    breached the Freedom of Information Act———Exactly, They did an email campaign asking everyone in the world that agreed with them to send in a personal request for information available on the net. With the small staff it was impossible to follow the Act for tens of thousands of requests. The British government investigated this very thing and concluded that they could have used more tact but could not possibly follow the Act under such circumstances. In other words the government said, NOT GUILTY.

    that will be the ONE you are looking for———No, that is the one you can't find. You throw out EVERY researcher in the world because you can't find ONE that agrees with you. Even the most obscure universities as far away from civilization as Kathmandu. Not ONE. How many geologists does it take to prove the world is round? Answer it doesn't matter to those that WANT to think it's flat.

  22. click1947 Avatar
    click1947

    Ahh, those neo-cons. Interested in the legacy of money debt to our grandchildren. Not so much in the garbage heap we have left behind nor in the legacy of a Love Canal future.

  23. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Art–I got to thinking today, since you don't trust any research that's funded by government grants, have you told your doctor that you won't take any medicine if the basic research was done with a government grant. Even if EVERY medical expert in the world agrees that it is the medicine for your condition?

  24. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Good Life: "Even if EVERY medical expert in the world agrees that it is the medicine for your condition?"

    Does EVERY climate expert agree with the Global Warming crowd? Seems to me there are, literally, hundreds that do not. Because a University does not take their position as its formal stance on the matter (primarily because there is no money it NOT believing) . . . that makes all other scientific findings null and void? Are you telling me the only people with the correct answers are the Government and University professors?

    Now, let's be honest; I never said I did not trust ANY research funded by government. I just don't trust research on a topic as nebulous as Man-Made Global Warming. A "science" that has quickly become more a religion than true science. However, to answer your question anyway: if my immediate health was on the line, I swallow the medicine. Having said that, I take some comfort in knowing there is a long track record of the medicine 'actually working'. In other words – it is real and verifiable. Its success or failure rates are concrete and its results are proven. The medicines success is not based on computer models and projections, whose parameters no two medical experts can agree on. It has probably had animal trials, human trials and mainstream use – with verifiable results all along the way. Now, if that same doctor tells me "Well, gee wiz, Art . . . we have never actually used this medicine on another human being before – but our computer model projections tell us it might work and should not kill you" – I may take a step back, look for a second opinion or just say 'no'.

  25. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Does EVERY climate expert agree with the Global Warming crowd?——Yes. The only "scientists" that don't are ones that never studied the subject.

    You really believe there could be a conspiracy so large that everyone from every country with every type of government and every type of economy and every type of climate and every type of religion and every type of culture can all get together and agree to fraud on anything? The amazing thing is they can actually agree on anything. When I first posed the question I truly didn't think the answer would by unanimous. I thought in looking for the minority you and others would discover how small the minority was. I'm totally amazed that there is no minority.

    You are a man of great faith. Faith in what you want to believe.

  26. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    BP announced that this morning they installed a wedding ring around the leaking pipe . . .

    . . . and it quit putting out!

    AUTHOR UNKNOWN

  27. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    "According to a survey in this week's Time magazine, 85% of Americans think global warming is happening. The other 15% work for the White House." –Jay Leno

    "Heating bills this winter are the highest they've been in five years, but President Obama has a plan to combat rising bills.

    It's called global warming." –Jay Leno

  28. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    Putting a few pieces together: American conservatives keep complaining that people don't take any personal responsibility for their mistakes, and yet we see the same issue writ large in American conservative ideology: humans aren't and can't be responsible for global warming. Despite having produced millions of cars, ships, trains, planes, factories, etc., over time. And BP isn't responsible for having cut corners, fought for increased deregulation, etc.; it's all Obama's fault for not having nationalised the oil industry immediately, it's the environmentalists fault for trying to see that some mild, commonsense regulations enforced, etc.

    But when a CEO brings in a profit, he deserves a big bonus, because he's been doing a "heckuva job" (whereas if the company goes down the toilet, he still gets a big bonus because it wasn't his fault).

    Then there was something Art said the other day about how unfortunate it was that American students aren't getting MAs or PhDs in science or engineering any more. Given the emphasis on getting rich quick (banking and real estate speculation, not science), the glorification of any number of "celebrities" boasting no evident talents whatsoever (Britney Spears, "American Idol," Paris Hilton, etc.), who wants a career devoted to working in a team in a lab, always fighting for more funding and the remote chance that, maybe somewhere down the road, some of your work might actually bring you some token nod recognition.

    The topsy-turvy world of paradox behind the GOP looking glass…

  29. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Does EVERY climate expert agree with the Global Warming crowd?

    Good Life: "Yes. The only “scientists” that don’t are ones that never studied the subject."

    Really?

    I wonder if Richard Lindzen has 'studied the subject'. He is an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) and member of the National Academy of Sciences. This is what he had to say:

    "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). BUT – and I cannot stress this enough – we are NOT in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."

    So, an MIT preofessor of Atmospheric Science says 'sure, it has warmed – but we do not know why and we can not forecast the future climate'.

    Nobody denies it is warmer. Just as no one can deny it was far, far warmer hundreds (even millions) of years ago.

    Question for the peanut gallery: If it was far warmer long before the industrial revolution . . . how can you be so confident that the relatively recent increase of only 0.6 (+/- 0.2) C since the late 19th century (IPCC figures) is primarily due to human activity?

    Let me know if you would like aditional climate experts that do not believe in man-made Global Warming. There are plenty of them.

  30. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    ArtW: "So, an MIT preofessor of Atmospheric Science says ’sure, it has warmed – but we do not know why and we can not forecast the future climate’"

    Not really: he said "we are NOT in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.”

    What "past" does he mean? the past "century" or does that include things like various warming periods over the more distant past? When the Vikings settled Greenland, for example? When the Romans made relatively good wine in England? Evidently CO2 was not the only factor contributing to these changes.

    As for "forecast[ing]… the future": that could take us back to David Hume & billiard balls. Based on the correlations of which Lindzen is "quite confident," further increases in CO2 should lead to rising temperatures. If those correlations are incorrect, or if other factors either enter the equation (nuclear war, large meteor impact, etc.), then all bets are off. All couched in traditional cautious academese.

    Now (to return to your lament about the lack of American students pursuing post-graduate degrees in engineering and the sciences), given that scientists and engineers and other so-called "experts" seem to have to explain and/or defend themselves against people with an axe to grind, is it any wonder that so few choose to pursue such a career? A long while back Deborah Lipstadt decided she was no longer going to even bother responding to anyone who tried to argue that the Holocaust is a hoax: running through the same old arguments, over and over again, for the benefit of people who have no interest in facts or reality, just ideology.

  31. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Geoff: " . . . we see the same issue writ large in American conservative ideology: humans aren’t and can’t be responsible for global warming. Despite having produced millions of cars, ships, trains, planes, factories, etc., over time."

    If humans and the industrial revolution are responsible for the warming trend – then why was it warmer thousands of years ago? The Holocene Maximum was the hottest period in human history . . . I'm pretty sure that was long before we started tooling around in SUV's. Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played virtually no role in the pre-industrial age increases in global temps.

    Enjoy the heat while you can. The current "Global Warming" period is coming to an end (in about 2,000 years), and when it does end, what occurs next is far more devastating. Until then, expect to see 40 year mini-cycles of warming/cooling.

    I'll be on vacation next week, so no postings . . . let me leave you with a couple of quotes:

    "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." – Stephen Schneider

    (Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

    "Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata." – Dr. William Gray (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University – in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)

    "Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." – Petr Chylek (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University – Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

    "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are…" former Vice President Al Gore (now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management– a London-based business that sells carbon credits – in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning 'An Inconvenient Truth')

    " . . . an over-representation of factual presentations . . . "

    Hmmm. I guess that's not technically A LIE. Or, is it?

    LOL.

    Cheers!

  32. WMDFail Avatar
    WMDFail

    @ArtW: Interesting article. I won't fall into the temptation of revealing the valid criticisms surrounding Lindzens science( I will leave that to others). But, even Lindzen would not deny ocean acidificaiton data

    There is a direct 1 to 1 relatioship between increased CO2 since 1700s industralizaiton era ocean acidificaiton. Read up on it from wiki.

    Here is also a nature article exerpt.

    “Ocean uptake of CO2 will help moderate future climate change, but the associated chemistry, namely hydrolysis of CO2 in seawater, increases the hydrogen ion concentration [H+]. Surface ocean pH is already 0.1 unit lower than preindustrial values. By the end of the century, it will become another 0.3–0.4 units lower1, 2 under the IS92a scenario, which translates to a 100–150% increase in [H+].”(Nature)

    (Nature 437, 681-686 (29 September 2005)(wiki).

    In other words as a result of increased C02. Ocean chemistry responded with increased H+ or acidification.

    Acidification creates its own problems with primary producers in bodies of water.

    So.

    Ocean acidificaiton is the smoking gun, to C02 increase.

    C02 increase is the result of industralization.

    Quantative data of receding glaciers since industralization is the smoking gun supporing climate change.

  33. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Lindzen "… charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels

    Western Fuels Association

    The Western Fuels Association is a not-for profit cooperative that supplies coal and transportation services to consumer-owned electric utility in the Great Plains, Rocky Mountain and Southwest regions. It is based in Westminster, Colorado.

    http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/139rmg~1.pdf

    OK, I found his list of papers at MIT. He is a meteorologist not a climatologist (though at MIT meteorology, oceanography and several other subjects are in the dept. of Climate). He has not written ONE RESEARCH paper on climate. Of all of his publications, the only ones on climate are editorials with lots of questions, no answers, and no research. I wish I could copy and paste to show this but they are PDF files and I can't copy them. So here's the gist (If you read one you've read them all):

    Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas. CO2, methane and other greenhouse gasses are increasing but we don't know why. Burning fossil fuels gives off CO2 but there may or may not be a connection between these fuels and the increase in CO2. The temperature has increased but that may or may not be due to the increase of greenhouse gasses. If the temperature continues to increase that may or may not increase water vapor. If it increases water vapor that may cause clouds which would slow the warming or it may increase the water vapor which would act as a greenhouse gas. If the industrialized nations cut down on fossil fuels it may or may not do any good since the developing nations would still use fossil fuels. If all of the nations cut down on burning fossil fuels that may or may not help the problem since there is so much CO2 and other gasses already in the pipeline. And those gasses already in the pipeline may or may not cause a problem.

    His final solution offered…..get this: We burn all of the oil and coal in the world then we will be forced to cut down putting greenhouse gasses into the air which may or may not be or will or won't cause a problem anyway. Then the world will cleanse the air and we will be back where we started. Either way it won't be our problem since it will be the problem of future generations.

    The same people that don't want to leave a debt to the future generations are backing a guy that has done NO research on the subject and whose only solution is to pass the problem on rather than solving what he can't decide is or isn't a problem.

    This guy has the backbone of an annelida. Does he support climate change? NO Does he support those against climate change? NO He keeps saying he doesn't know anything. So I guess if you can't find anyone that is with you, finding one that isn't against you is as good as you can do.

  34. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    The Myth Of Global Warming

    A brief list of arguments that each refute the notion that the community should be scared by the idea of global warming.

    The Swindle The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Sea Levels Not Rising Except In The Lies of the IPCC

    Solar Cycles, Not CO2

    Determine Climate Global Climate Explained

    (If you Want To Worry)

    Suspend Disaster The Myth Of Global Warming

    A Load Of Hot Air Climate Change Hysteria is Costing Us

    The Ice Age Cometh The Real Danger Of An Ice Age

    Global Warming Messy Models, Decent Data, and Pointless Policy

    Hot Politics Doctoring Of Reports By UN Experts

    Cool Climate The Absurdity Of Trying To Control Climate

    A Pagan Fantasy The Effect Of Accepting Popular Paranoia As Truth

    http://ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

  35. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." (Letter to Canadian Prime Minister from 60 world leading climate Scientists)**** See the list of scientists below.

    1) Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and

    paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

    2) Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries

    and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility

    and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide;

    currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and

    Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

    3) Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences

    (paleoclimatology) , Carleton University, Ottawa

    4) Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and

    associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University,

    Ottawa

    5) Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment

    Canada.

    Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

    6) Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences,

    Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

    7) Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics,

    University of Guelph, Ont.

    8) Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of

    Winnipeg; environmental consultant

    9) Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences,

    University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

    10) Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology) , fellow of the Royal

    Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO

    Meteorological Group, Ottawa

    11) Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and

    associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University

    of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

    12) Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of

    Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics

    Research Group, University of Alberta

    13) Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography,

    University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

    14) Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in

    environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics,

    University of Victoria

    15) Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and

    Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

    16) Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former

    meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization.

    Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter,

    U.K.

    17) Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of

    Meteorology, University of Alberta

    18) Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va.,

    and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

    19) Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal

    consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

    20) Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant,

    Calgary

    21) Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

    22) Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology,

    Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts

    Institute of Technology

    23) Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for

    Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

    24) Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University;

    Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of

    State Climatologists

    25) Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and

    Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of

    earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

    26) Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James

    Cook

    University, Townsville, Australia

    27) Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head

    National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former

    Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission

    for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

    28) Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal

    Netherlands Meteorological Institute

    29) Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclim atologist,

    Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations,

    New Zealand

    30) Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences,

    University of Virginia

    31) Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics &

    geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    32) Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study,

    Salinas, Calif.

    33) Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System

    Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

    34) Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and

    Atmospheric

    Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

    35) Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University

    of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks

    and Environment, CNRS

    36) Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and

    Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working

    group II, chapter 8 (human health)

    37) Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific

    Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw,

    Poland

    38) Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christianse n, reader, Dept. of Geography,

    University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

    39) Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board,

    Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International

    Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

    40) Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of

    Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

    41) Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre,

    Meteorological Institute, Norway

    42) Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science,

    University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological

    Service (MetService) of New Zealand

    43) Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The

    Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington,

    N.Z.

    44) Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of

    Connecticut

    45) Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of

    Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

    46) Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with

    Imperial

    College London, U.K.

    47) Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and

    Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member,

    United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural

    Disasters, 1994-2000

    48) Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences,

    University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite

    Service

    49) Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and

    isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the

    Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the

    Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

    50) Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy

    conversion,

    Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

    51) Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher,

    Boston,

    Mass.

    52) Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-

    author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously

    with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

    Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific

    climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

    53) Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired),

    Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology,

    University of Helsinki, Finland

    54) Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical

    Geography and Quaternary

    Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

    55) Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorolo gist, previously with

    the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric

    consultant.

    56) Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and

    Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

    57) Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics,

    Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands

    organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and

    public health

    58) Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.;

    international economist

    59) Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science

    consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

    60) Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The

    University of Auckland, N.Z.

  36. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Rob—Have any of them done any actual research and if they have, did you read the original papers?

    This is the problem. Last time we debated this I spent the time to go to the original papers and most of the list weren't even in the field (as one can see from the titles on your list) , none disagreed (they just debated the time line while acknowledging man caused change) or like the one Art gave didn't support or refute anything, they just weren't sure.

    I don't have time to play that game right now. Show me the original research paper (not what some editorial writer that admits prejudice says it says) from any of them that supports your position

  37. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    It's one man's opinion and research against another's opinion and research depending on how they wish to skew the statics and what they want you and the government to believe so the fear money and attention will keep rolling in.

    Ask 10 qualified (oooh. look at my degree and research paper) researchers their results and you'll get 10 different opionons that support their grants.

    How's that research on God coming along?

    Show me the original research paper (not what some biblical writer that admits religious prejudice says it says) from any of them that supports your yes or no position

  38. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    ArtW: "If humans and the industrial revolution are responsible for the warming trend – then why was it warmer thousands of years ago? The Holocene Maximum was the hottest period in human history . . . I’m pretty sure that was long before we started tooling around in SUV’s. Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played virtually no role in the pre-industrial age increases in global temps."

    Well, that's what your quote pointed out: different causes, those in the past not necessarily identified (sort of a shortage of reliable data and eye-witness accounts).

    Consider all the ways we can generate electricity: solar cells, windmills, coal- or nuclear power, dams, etc. Lots of causes, same result.

  39. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    against another’s opinion and research ——Opinion YES, research NO. Anyone doing research on the subject simply agrees that there is man-made climate change. If there is an actual researcher that disagrees, no one on this site has found him/her during the last 3 years.

    And there are better than you who have tried to find that ONE researcher.

  40. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    Art: "'We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.'”

    Too bad no one considered stuff like this when Bush & Co. were pounding the drums to get the go-ahead to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Too bad no one seems to have thought about this, seriously, when calling for deregulation, trickle-down/voodoo economics, inflating the real estate bubble (Greenspan-style economics), etc.

    All very one-sided; being overly critical on one side while ignoring glaring faults on the other tends to weaken your case.

  41. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    Good Life: I am unconvinced that pointing out even ONE researcher on the subject (that disagrees that global warming is man made) that you would change your opinion and belief. Environmentalist religion!

    No doubt, you would scoff at the person who did or is doing the research, the qualifications of the person who did or is doing the research, the content would be entirely dismissed while watching the exhaust coming out of your rear end . . . of vehicle you drive.

    And here it is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&fe

  42. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    Good Life: Take your pick after using this search string:

    research results global warming hoax

  43. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    It's religion to believe the research of tens of thousands of climatologist from every major university in the world and every government research agency in the world but it's not religion to believe that they are all wrong and that there must be one that disagrees out there someplace even thought no one on this site has found that one through over three years of searching. And if someone did eventually find that one it would still be religion to believe the tens of thousands over that one messiah but logic to believe the one over the tens of thousands.

    Is that really your argument? Is that how you define religion vs. logic?

    Hannitizing to the max!!!

  44. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Rob— -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

    If you look back on this thread, I tried to do research on John Coleman. He is NOT a scientist. He doesn't even list one college degree of any kind on his resume. His experience is entirely an "on air" personality that reads the weather report from the National Weather Service. Absolutely NO research. Absolutely NO study of climate.

    This is your MESSIAH that you will follow without question and you say this is logic but following the tens of thousands that have gone to a college and spent time studying and researching is religion.

  45. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Take your pick —–Do the research and actually look up the original research papers (and make sure you are seeing research and not editorial) and give me the best you have to offer. I ask only for real research on the subject by the person and real conclusions that say this person denies man made climate change (not that he thinks it will be slower than the majority or occurring in a different way than the majority). Something other than maybe yes or no. Someone that has the "goods" that there is NO man made climate change and has done the actual work to prove it.

    Over the last 3 years I've gone through dozens of lists. I have yet to find anything other than:

    1. editorial (no proof at all they just don't believe it) ,

    2. a "conflict" as to how fast it's happening (yet admitted it's happening) ,

    3. papers "hannitized" where only a bitty bit says something remotely against man made change but it's passed off as the 100%,

    4. people with no education or research of the subject usually also working in the energy industry.

    All you have to do is find ONE that passes those tests. If you are correct and there is such massive evidence to support you it should be easy.

  46. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    Good Life:

    Find me one, just one, that has "PROOF POSITIVE" research that humanity IS the cause of any increase (or even decrease for that matter) in earth temperatures.

    Find anything other than:

    1. editorial (no proof at all they just don’t believe it) ,

    2. a “conflict” as to how fast it’s happening (yet admitted it’s happening) ,

    3. papers “hannitized” where only a bitty bit says something remotely against man made change but it’s passed off as the 100%,

    4. people with no education or research of the subject usually also working in the energy industry.

    All you have to do is find ONE that passes those tests. If you are correct and there is such massive evidence to support you it should be easy.

    By the way, as I spin around in my office chair, I can feel the axis of the earth changing, therefore, myself and the rest of humanity must be the spinning cause of it.

    I believe, therefore, it is!

  47. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Colorado State University http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/lutea/chib

    University of South Wales http://www.connectedwaters.unsw.edu.au/resources/

    University of California-Davis http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1108JLR

    Sheffield Hallam University (UK) http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1108JLR

  48. Good Life Avatar
  49. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Sorry I couldn't put on more. The site won't let me put on site after site of university research. I didn't find a university that didn't have research showing man-made climate change. It was fun to just put an obscure country in the search engine and see a list of every major university in the nation. Seems everyone has looked at this and there are no exceptions. If they would let me post all of them it would be a project for the next year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *