Contributors

Sunday, July 01, 2012

Both Sides are Not Equally Hysterical

The difference in rhetoric between Republicans and Democrats couldn't be starker these past few weeks. Republicans are saying the Fast and Furious program is a scandal far worse than Watergate (which is, as Republicans love to say, laughable, since the program was started under George Bush). They're calling the Supreme Court's decision on the health care law "the end of freedom," when all it does is make people take responsibility for themselves.

Meanwhile, Colorado is burning. Texas is burning, and is likely to be hit by a severe power shortage this summer, causing rolling blackouts. Texas isn't on the national power grid, so they don't know what they're going to do. To make things worse, the prevalent forms of power generation, from hydro, to coal, to nuclear, all use vast amounts of waterMany areas in the western half of the US has been in severe drought conditions for years. Earlier this year the south was clobbered by wave after wave of ferocious tornadoes, starting in February. The eastern half of the country has just been hammered by powerful storms, knocking out power for millions, and is now broiling in 90-100 degree temperatures. This heat and lack of air conditioning will kill dozens if not hundreds of the elderly, children and people with asthma and similar diseases.


The increased frequency and severity of these events are due to climate change, but there's a noticeable absence of hysteria about it from national Democratic figures, even though we're probably past the point of no return on climate change.


If climate change were part of the Republican™ brand, though, they would be screaming it was the end of the world, that Armageddon was upon us. They would label the Koch brothers tools of the devil, in league with Saudi princes to jack up the price of oil and bring Sharia law to America. They would say God is punishing us for destroying the environment by turning the environment against us.

But every time it snows more than an inch, or we have a normal winter like those that were common 30 years ago, they say that it's "proof" climate change is a myth. In Virginia law makers removed references to climate change and sea level rise, changing the law to refer to "recurrent flooding," even though sea levels on some parts of the east coast have risen by as much as 3.8 millimeters a year since 1950. Globally, sea level has been rising by eight inches a century since 1843.

And every time we have a heat wave or hurricane, climate scientists will admit, "We can't say this particular severe weather event was caused by climate change." And the nay-sayers immediately pounce and say, "Told you so!"

But that's because climate scientists are honest and have integrity. They won't make a statement they can't prove to be true, because any particular storm might have occurred under any climate regime. What they have predicted is that there will more tornadoes, hurricanes, and thunderstorms, and that they will on average be more severe. Just as we've seen.


Why? Since the atmosphere and ocean are warmer, there is more energy in storm systems. Since the arctic ice is almost completely melting during the summer, there is more water in the atmosphere, the jet stream over the north pole is shifting and weather patterns are changing. This is causing some areas to be hit by colder winters, while others will have much milder ones (like the Twin Cities, where the ground was still bare in mid-January). Some areas will get socked by big snowfalls and floods, while other areas will languish in drought, without enough snow to replenish the snow pack. The result is that Glacier National Park will cease to have glaciers in my lifetime, and people who depend on winter snowfall in the Rockies for their water supply will have to go thirsty.


And it gets more insidious: higher temperatures have allowed insects like pine beetles to migrate north into formerly cool areas, infesting trees that have no defenses. Entire forests die, and then the dead trees burn. Which is exactly what's happening in the Colorado fire.


In short, the "freak" weather we've seen over the last 10 years is doing exactly what climate scientists said it would do. Temperature increases, CO2 levels and sea-level rise are at or above the numbers predicted by the models.


The Republican tactic of throwing a temper tantrum might work for stopping tax increases or repealing health care for all Americans. But it won't stop people from dying of heat stroke or prevent more intense and frequent hurricanes and floods. In the long run, all that damage caused by severe weather and rising seas will cost us trillions of dollars, money we could spend to make our air cleaner and cooler, and making all Americans healthier.

14 comments:

Mark Ward said...

Much like the teenager who comes crying back to mom and dad once things are all fucked up and they realize how irrational they have been, the right will eventually admit that climate change is happening and is being hastened by greenhouse gases. These sorts of incidents are going to start affecting more people personally and when that happens people are going to look at the climate deniers and wonder, "What the fuck is your problem?"

Further, once guys like the Kochs can see how much money can be made from green tech and climate change emergency support, they'll be singing a much different tune.

juris imprudent said...

Never mind that global climate has shown greater swings in temperature long before man ever burned a damn thing.

Patricia Buchanon said...

Leave it to a Repukelican fatcat like Juris to remind us of "The Ice Age".

Is it any coincidence that the ice age was a long time ago, AND the bible was a long time ago?

You are just trying to shove your White Power KKK Christian dogma down our throats when you mention things said by Jesus - like 'The Ice Age'.

Larry said...

First, Fast and Furious didn't start under Bush. You've obviously read nothing but talking points on the subject, so I suggest reading up on it before making a bigger fool of yourself.

N:Texas is burning

Oops. Too Late.

Regarding Texas power problems, you
seem to have as little understanding of the reasons for that as to whether or not "Texas is burning." Texas' population and economy is growing rather quickly, and power generation is falling behind. Building new power plants isn't exactly a quick process, sometimes requiring years to do the environmental impact studies and finally get approval. Texas is being faced with premature shutdown of 3 large coal power plants because of new EPA regulations.


Meanwhile, US CO2 output has actually been falling for several years, though you'd never know about from the mindless caterwauling of parrots like you. Of course, that doesn't mean much when China and India are ramping up like crazy. What do you suggest we do about them? Or do you think the Evil Koch Brother (tm) are in charge there, too?

I wonder how the Vikings caused the Medieval Warm Period when it was warmer than it is now? Or how the Romans caused the Roman Warm Period, which was even warmer. How, oh how did the poor polarey bears survive?

As to Colorado fires, Zubrin's take is right on. The same problem of idiotic forest management is going to cause a lot of Montana to burn some day. For the most part, effective responses to pine beetle infestation are blocked and we're left to watch the dead areas spread, and can't even log out the dead trees, for Christ's sake!

Mark Ward said...

You've obviously read nothing but talking points on the subject

The first gun walking operation, called Operation Wide Receiver, started under Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wide_Receiver#2006.E2.80.932007:_Operation_Wide_Receiver_and_other_probes

though you'd never know about from the mindless caterwauling of parrots like you.

Let me get this straight. All the scientific experts on climate change are wrong. And you, Larry, (as well as the other deniers here) are right because...why exactly? Oh yes, because admitting when liberals are right about something is fucking Armageddon.

Larry said...

And that other program ended in 2007, while Fast and Furious started in 2009, dipshit, and was a completely different program with completely different protocols. Nikto can only make his claim about
Fast and Furious as honestly as someone could claim, "Markadelphia is a pederast" because Markadelphia engaged in a bit of homosexual exploration at age 13, as many kids do. Cause it's all the same, don'cha know." Not that
I would ever say such a thing, because I have some respect for
language and logic, if not for you.

Now for climate change, what the fuck are you going on about? You know damned well that not "all the scientific experts on climate change" agree on the scope of humanity's effects on climate, there are ongoing disagreements on the nature of the evidence, strong evidence of chicanery with some of the "evidence" (Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick" statistical tomfoolery stands out), and the simple fact that we don't know all of the factors, let alone their interactions, in a highly chaotic system.

Nor does it help that you ignore known facts (US CO2 output is going down and may be down to 1990 levels, it has been both significantly warmer and significantly colder in recorded history (which is an brief moment in climatological terms), resort to an Appeal to Authority (Bad teacher! Bad! Bad!), and adopt a smear ("denier", and you know damned well what the association is). Clown.

GuardDuck said...

The first gun walking operation, called Operation Wide Receiver, started under Bush.

Which means you still haven't educated yourself on the topic.

Fast & Furious, From A Law Enforcement Perspective

What's the difference between controlled delivery and walking?

GuardDuck said...

I suggest both you and Nikto read this series by somebody way smart.

Start with:

Should you be a Global Warming Skeptic?

Then read the whole series:

Global Warming 101

Mark Ward said...

Don't any of you think it's interesting that William Newell was involved in both operations?

I suggest both you and Nikto read this series by somebody way smart.

OK, is this a joke? "Way smart?" And you see no relevance whatsoever to my continued comparison to adolescent behavior?

And are you seriously asking me to put a right wing blog on the same level as the National Academy of Sciences?

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices-2011/12781

What are the credentials of the person who runs Borepatch? How do they compare with the research presented at the NAS site? The profile says technology and internet security. If I wanted information about the Stuxnet virus (and I may at some point), this would seem like a good place to start. But climate research?

This goes back to the adolescent power fantasy thing again. You don't like authority. Others feel the same. So, you all get together and start shouting about how much you don't like authority. The recently created herd decides that people being way smarter than they are is a bad thing. Throw in the Rove (we are all about logic and facts, it's the liberals who are about feelings) for seasoning and you have a picture perfect description of the Church of Climate Change Deniers.

juris imprudent said...

Don't any of you think it's interesting that William Newell was involved in both operations?

That is a problem with civil service - even someone who really ought to be fired just hangs around, maybe even gets promoted.

And you see no relevance whatsoever to my continued comparison to adolescent behavior?

You are absorbed with yourself and project a lot - but I doubt that's what you meant.

the credentials

You can't address the argument so you attack credentials? Yeah, that right there is a mature and measured response. You might as well say "nuh-uh, my Dad said so".

Good to see you in such true form.

GuardDuck said...

Ahhh, appeal to authority......


Touche.....



By the way, what are your credentials to discuss the economy, politics, global warming, fast and furious, health care, taxes, business or gun control?


Perhaps you could just read his argument, check his sources and use your freaking brain to determine if he makes valid arguments?

Mark Ward said...

Ahhh, appeal to authority......

No, it's a link with all the scientific evidence that supports the theory that climate change is being hastened by man made carbon emissions.

Before I comment further on the link you provided, is this your site?

what are your credentials to discuss the economy, politics, global warming, fast and furious, health care, taxes, business or gun control?

On the economy, politics, health care, taxes, and business-a master's degree in instruction specializing in social studies.

On climate change-I'm not a climatologist which is why I referred to the NAS.

ON FF and gun control-what sort of credentials would I have to have here to adequately discuss this?

GuardDuck said...

Not my site.


On credentials, you are the one who seems to think that you can't think without someone with 'credentials' to tell you what to think.....


Are you afraid to use your brain to determine if his arguments have merit or is it more of a religion where you have to follow the word on high from the anointed?

Mark Ward said...

Are you afraid to use your brain to determine if his arguments have merit or is it more of a religion where you have to follow the word on high from the anointed?

Are you with us or with the terrorists? :)

I spent some time looking through his arguments and right from the start I was pretty frustrated. He links himself for evidence and you have to drill down to find any actual, outside links with data.

After you get past all of that, most of his arguments are the same as all the rest on right wing blogs...half truths, lies, and (ahem) hand waving. I don't define "using my brain" as believing the emotional outpourings of a self admitted non scientist whose blog kills fascists (nope, no juvenile behavior here...please move along).

Here's the deal, GD. Are there any facts that I could present to you that would change your mind about climate change? If so, I'd be happy to engage in a discussion with you about this issue. I will put up a post with links to the NAS site as well as the other sites that support the theory that carbon emissions are hastening climate change. I will offer my interpretation of these facts and the evidence. If you think there is a chance that they will sway you, then I will do it.

Equally, if you have some evidence on the same type of level as the NAS or something similar, I'd be happy to take a look at it. How about starting with someone who is a scientist and is in the field? Offer your own interpretation of the evidence to counter mine as opposed to just putting up a link to someone who is "way smart." In other words, put in the same amount of effort that I do in making an argument.

If you can't do either of these things, I really don't want to waste my time.