Posted on 11/01/2012 3:45:20 AM PDT by Zakeet
President Obama and Mitt Romney seemed determined not to discuss climate change in this campaign. So thanks to Hurricane Sandy for forcing the issue: Isn’t it time to talk not only about weather, but also about climate?
It’s true, of course, that no single storm or drought can be attributed to climate change. Atlantic hurricanes in the Northeast go way back, as the catastrophic “snow hurricane” of 1804 attests. But many scientists believe that rising carbon emissions could make extreme weather — like Sandy — more likely.
“You can’t say any one single event is reflective of climate change,” William Solecki, the co-chairman of the New York City Panel on Climate Change, told me. “But it’s illustrative of the conditions and events and scenarios that we expect with climate change.”
In that sense, whatever its causes, Sandy offers a window into the way ahead.
[Snip]
I was schooled in the far-reaching changes under way several years ago by Eskimos in Alaska, who told me of their amazement at seeing changes in their Arctic village — from melting permafrost to robins (for which their Inupiat language has no word), and even a (shivering) porcupine. If we can’t see that something extraordinary is going on in the world around us, we’re in trouble.
[Snip]
“For the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change,” James E. Hansen, a NASA climate scientist, recently wrote in The Washington Post.
Politicians have dropped the ball, but so have those of us in the news business. The number of articles about climate change fell by 41 percent from 2009 to 2011, according to DailyClimate.org.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You right wing nuts should quit your hateful agenda of denying the obvious ... cause I learned that we need a carbon tax from the Eskimos in Alaska when they showed me a shivering porcupine ... and if you can't see that something extraordinary is going on in the world around us, then we're in trouble!
Well, there's your answer right there.
So shut up about it.
Yea, let’s talk about the cold front from the North that stalled Sandy and drove the storm inland.
I just released some methane into the atmosphere.
The only respect climate change will get is from Al Gore who is trying desperately to recoup millions of dollars he invested in this hoax. This global warming scam has been debunked by so many scientists and meteorologists that the few left who believe it look like idiots. And most who support it have some kind of monetary reason to keep perpetuating the hoax.
I SO believe in climate change. Yesterday I didn’t have to wear a coat; today I did. Freaky.
Liberals, please do your fair share to end climate change: stop breathing.
Nope no respect for Climate Change Liars here!
Mel
LLS
Whenever Jim Hansen, a political hack, talks about "climate" change, he really means man-caused climate change, specious reasoning.
Yes, there is and will continue to be climate change on Earth, Mars, Venus, and other planets in our solar system. The cause of climate change is the Sun.
Other than foolish and scientifically illiterate politicians and hacks like Hansen who want to blame mankind, there is no real, meaningful evidence that mankind is a factor in natural climate change. Look outside, the only greenhouse gas is water vapor in the form of clouds. The connection between carbon dioxide and weather change cannot be made because there is none, except by alchemists.
Ah Ha! So you are the one!
If climate change was real, we should expect extended summers and shorter winters.
It hasn’t happened. There is no anthropogenic factor that drives climate on earth big enough to have a global impact.
No - what liberals do in supporting this scam is to take away our freedoms - to dress as we want, live as we want, work where want and vacation where they want.
Its not about protecting the environment; that’s merely a cover for our lives being under the thumb of benevolent commissars and bureaucrats.
A free country doesn’t need more central planning and regimentation from Washington; it needs more personal choice and freedom.
Now you know why Nicholas Kristof wants Big Government to keep tabs on us.
>> I was schooled in the far-reaching changes under way several years ago by Eskimos in Alaska, who told me of their amazement at seeing changes in their Arctic village — from melting permafrost to robins (for which their Inupiat language has no word), and even a (shivering) porcupine. If we can’t see that something extraordinary is going on in the world around us, we’re in trouble.
“Proving” theories by anecdote instead of experiment is not doing science. At least not in *my* universe — maybe in Manhattan that’s how it works.
Get ready, people. If Romney wins, “climate change”, the homeless, and a bunch of other stuff is going to make a HUGE comeback in the news.
I came across an interesting item when doing some research this morning. Hurricane Irene was apparently the first hurricane to make landfall in New Jersey since 1903. I didn't believe this at first, but apparently every other major storm since then either made landfall after declining to a tropical storm or made landfall elsewhere while causing widespread damage in New Jersey.
Does anyone think the jack@sses at the New York Times will mention this sort of thing?
“I just released some methane into the atmosphere.”
Was it SBD? (silent but deadly)
The funny thing is, if you go to Wikipedia’s current page on Ice Ages, the latest effect on climate attributed to Mankind is... We’ve forestalled the next period of glaciation. (You know, Chicago under a mile of ice, maybe a few thousand humans left alive on the planet...)
Seems like a good thing to me!
Ahhhhh, a bit of reality juxtaposed with smooth spin. He is right, no single storm indicates any kind of long term tend. However, they are still basing all of their " the sky is falling" sales pitch on computer models, not reality. Models aren't reality, especially when you take them outside their nominal inputs. In other words, when you try to use them to be predictive of situations with input well beyond any known input set. Then you have absolutely no real world data to anchor them too, no way at all of verifying their behavior. Trust me, grin, I'm involved professionally with large scale complex computer models every day, I know their usefulness and their limitations. Oh, and to make the gw, crowd's argument even more ludicrous, we now know they have been fudging, falsifying, and cherry-picking their data - this by their own admission in that series of emails that came out. I would have thought anyone and everyone would be too embarrassed to associate themselves with the dead-horse of gw. Guess maybe they are trolling, seeing if there is any life (ie money) left in it...
Isn’t it time for lefty network reporters and execs to stop buying houses on the water-front?
Hypocrites all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.