Skip to comments.U.N. optimistic the U.S. will finally hop on that climate-change bandwagon
Posted on 11/25/2012 7:54:34 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Ugh, here we go again: Self-righteous globalism-loving environmental zealots hellbent on getting developed nations to voluntarily contract their relatively prosperous economies, ostensibly in order to combat climate change, while trying to dictate the type of green development theyd like to see happen in poorer countries.
As Ive noted before, environmentalists are hopefully sniffing the air now that President Obama has won a second term, banking on the more flexible Obamas willingness to once again take up the mantle of climate change especially in the wake of this past summers droughts and superstorm Sandy. From the AP:
[A]s a re-elected president talks about global warming again, climate activists are cautiously optimistic that the U.S. will be more than a disinterested bystander when the U.N. climate talks resume Monday with a two-week conference in Qatar.
They will focus on side issues, like extending the Kyoto protocol an expiring emissions pact with a dwindling number of members and ramping up climate financing for poor nations.
They will also try to structure the talks for a new global climate deal that is supposed to be adopted in 2015, a process in which American leadership is considered crucial.
We need the U.S. to engage even more, European Union Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told The Associated Press. Because that can change the dynamic of the talks.
Yes, you do need the United States, because our economic prosperity that you semi-secretly hate so much is what provides the lions share of the funding for the United Nations and is the reason that so many climate scientists and environment officials even have jobs. Why is it that all of these environmentalist gurus just cant grasp the concept that environmental quality and a high standard of living are not mutually exclusive? A thriving and robust economy is whats going to bring about the technological innovations, efficiency, and renewable energy sources that theyre looking for and putting self-imposed limits on what we can and cant do is only going to bring about completely unnecessary misery.
As Jazz wrote this morning, the U.S. is standing on the edge of a potential economic boom that could be propelled forward by our vastly abundant energy resources recently unlocked by new technologies and the possibility of the Obama administration putting quixotic restrictions on our economy to comply with globalists ideas of sustainability-virtue, does not bode well.
OK. Let’s propose that those UN nations with high birth rates lead the way by encouraging smaller families (without abortion of course). I’m saying this because of the hypocrisy involved. Mexico City is one of the worst air pollution cities in the world. Is that the fault of the US? When Germany reunited, East Germany was an environmental disaster. Is that the fault of Western society? The Chinese will in no way allow issues regarding climate, or the environment, stop what they feel is their rightful march to economic dominance (which won’t happen - unless we let it happen).
Carbon is an excuse....they just want the money!
Money and control.
Hurricane Sandy was no Super storm.
It hit where a hurrican hadn’t hit that hard since 1938, but the 1938 storm was much worse.
It was a Hurricane with some unusual pattern, but the winds were not that high— Hurricane Andrew had winds of 200 mph, If that had hit where Sandy did it would have been a super storm.Sandy was indeed a bad storm, did a lot of damage, but it was just anther hurricane.
The “climate change bandwagon” is just another way to “access” our wealth
Gonna jump on the climate change unicorn !
Meanwhile China’s has surpassed the US in annual emissions AND total 1965-2011 emissions.
US emissions have been horizontal for decades, China’s is near vertical.
1938 hit further east but you are correct, it was stronger. Hazel (1954) was stronger too (holds the record for highest winds in NYC). Both storms spared NYC of a surge (1938 too far east and Hazel too far west). Sandy’s surge was mostly bad luck.
If youre making a case against global warning causing this thing, fine, but to claim this wasn’t a big storm will lose your credibility.
Joe Bastardi has an interesting and credible take on it.
Sandy was the size of Europe.
Everyone from the Jersey Shore, to Manhattan and to the South Shore of LI - highly populated- got the heck out of there way early.
Excerpts from CNN, (which cannot bias numbers such as these):
Sandy had already claimed at least 67 lives in the Caribbean, including 51 in Haiti, which speaks to the respect for weather that the locals in the Northeast have for weather. Look at the stats on evacuations 400,000 out of Manhattan ordered out days prior. Mayor Bloomberg doesnt need the credit, these people know to get off low lying beach/river front and way before the traffic jams. They have bug out places- family and friends in and up state.
In 1938, The Long Island Express” Hurricaine, contained a low pressure reading of 946 millibars; Sandy had a minimum pressure of 943 millibars. Generally speaking, the lower the pressure, the stronger the storm.
The 1938 storm was not on satellite photo, so there were no true evacuations. Have you seen the photo for this one?
Also, people in their 70s and 80s remember Donna (which accouts partly for the high incidence of women named Donna in the area who are in their 50s.
New York, lower Manhattan’s Battery Park recorded nearly 14-foot tide, smashing a record set by 1960’s Hurricane Donna by more than 3 feet. The city had already halted service on its bus and train lines, closing schools and ordering about 400,000 people out of their homes in low-lying areas of Manhattan and elsewhere.
Flooding forced the closure of all three of the major airports in the area, LaGuardia, John F. Kennedy and Newark Liberty. Water seeped into subway stations in Lower Manhattan and into the tunnel connecting Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn
It was less damaging to life and limb because people got out of there. It hurts to know this, as just before Katrina hit, I watched mayor nagin staring at the camera looking for help instead of driving buses into the low lying areas to evacuate, and then, not closing off the inbound THREE empty EMPTY lands of highway as the outbound hwy was jammed. The stupidity was discouraging.
But this was a big storm, so. . .
“Climate Change’ is the buzzphrase for transferring wealth from smart hard working countries to stupid lazy corrupt countries... (with lots of skim between...)
The communists were counting upon the money made from their
“climate change” scam to subsidize their goat of global communism. Communism cannot pay for itself. It requires the extortion of money from non-communist party members for it to survive.
Saying nothing about global warming here, as I find it irrelevant- heck, a couple of people I know from the area are named after hurricanes which hit in the 1950s and 1960s.
This area is no stranger to hurricanes - the south has no claim to them.
Respectfully, guys, high winds are an important component of stregnth of a storm, but they are not the whole picture. Tides and storm surge, area covered, legnth of time over affected area, and water and rain damage.
Actually, one should imagine if this had hit in a time like 1938 with no forecasting how many would have been killed.
Entire towns along the coast were evacuated and just now becoming inhabitable.
Also, the 1938 Hurricane had higher barometric pressure readings than did Sandy.
Just as a matter of fact, the eye of 1938 hurricane hit Westhampton, 60 or so miles from NYC. It was a very bad storm and flooded providence RI completely, to the Northeast. It did not do so much damage to the east toward Montauk as Sandy did to her east.
Sandy hit Atlantic City 160 (one hundred sixty) miles to the south of Mnhattan, causing severe damage theare and beyond way into Long Island (Breezy Point and The Rockaways.
Everyone inland in NJ, LI, Conn has damage -trees down etc. It’s not fully poered up yet.
they don’t complain, and that has much to do with the perception that it wasn’t a big storm.
Mna made global warming shouldn’t enter into the discussion, as far as I’m concerned.
In fact this headline is so stupid. the U.N. should be talking about nothing else than our Ambassador hving been killed until they get to the bottom of it.
Also, the 1938 Hurricane had higher barometric pressure readings than did Sandy.
Extratropical transition caused a temporary drop in Sandy. The surge from Sandy hit at astronomical high tide. Had the surge from Hazel hit NYC at high tide instead of low tide it would have exceeded Sandy's surge
I agree that Sandy was a strong storm, but not as strong as several 19th century storms and a couple of 20th century storms.
Climate change? Global Cooling worries became Global Warming fanaticism. Now we have “Climate Change” to cover all bets and eventualities. But whatever happens, the anti-capitalist, Chicken Little Crowd will blame it on the “greedy” rich, who will be expected to compensate Third World victims for the alleged damage they have caused.
The surge from the 1938 storm was much higher than Sandy’s although it did not extend over as wide an area. In comparing overall effect the extra width of Sandy still does not stack up to the height of the 1938 storm.
Just responding to this:
“Hurricane Sandy was no Super storm.
It hit where a hurrican hadnt hit that hard since 1938, but the 1938 storm was much worse.
It was a Hurricane with some unusual pattern, but the winds were not that high Hurricane Andrew had winds of 200 mph, If that had hit where Sandy did it would have been a super storm.Sandy was indeed a bad storm, did a lot of damage, but it was just anther hurricane”
And what you say:
“In comparing overall effect the extra width of Sandy still does not stack up to the height of the 1938 storm.”
Here, whether you are right or wrong, does not equal “Snady was no super storm”
The superstorm label undoubtedly fits March 1993 where it was first used. If it is used for transitioning hurricanes like Sandy then we will have to relabel a lot of hurricanes from the past as "superstorms". Sandy's unusual track came from the strength of the upper jet and short wave that coincided with Sandy that would have caused a strong nor'easter without any Sandy around. That nor'easter would have been notable, so adding Sandy's effects makes Sandy even more noteworthy. So while I don't disagree with the superstorm label, it should be put in perspective.
I never said it wasn’t a big storm. What I said was that is was no super-storm.
It was a hurricane and hurricanes are big storms. Circumstances made this storm very damaging, but Global Warming did not create it and it wasn’t so strong as to be out of the ordinary.
“it was just anther hurricane
Is what you said.
I just pay so much of no attention to man made global warming that I don’t get into these things passionately.
It DOES seem to me that the locals deserve a lot of credit for putting up with the magnitude of this thing. I’ve been through many weather events and in that are as well. This is the worst. Been through a few hurricanes and this wan simply not “just another hurricane”.
I am just saying.
Oh blah blah blah.
Could we give the locals some just some credit for having put up with this thing?
Super, big, just another hurricane, what ever.
The UN should not be blathering on about this they should be interested in the fact that our ambassador was killed as they would if we (like the Libyans did ours) killed their ambassador in Washington.
No doubt it was destructive, But it was no Frankenstorm.
It left a lot of misery and suffering in it’s path, but so have many other hurricanes, certainly the people still recovering from it will remember it all their lives, Just as I remember Hazel ,Isabel, Agnes,it was a dangerous storm and will be recorded as such. The one you are in will always be the one you say was the worst.
Was it worse than Katrina? Was it worse than the 200 MPH winds that destroyed the Florida Keys in 1935?
There have been terrible hurricanes throughout history one that destroyed Brownsville Texas in 1933.
I am not here to argue how bad this hurricane was. Certainly it was bad and caused a lot of human misery, I am here to say that only in the last couple of years have these bad hurricanes been blamed on Global warming ,and that blame is BS. It was this years worst hurricane -—Period.
It wasn’t global warming as far as I’m concerned, and I’ve said that in every post I’ve made on this thread. I never said anything about Frankenstorm never.
I want to call attention the resilience of the locals.
That’s all I’m going to say on this subject.
“Everyone inland in NJ, LI, Conn has damage -trees down etc. Its not fully poered up yet.”
No; NOT “Everyone”; by far. Did the storm reach far inland? Yes. Was it as great and severe far inland? No. The further inland you go, the less severe the damage and NOT everyone in NJ, Conn. & on Long Island had damage. Some had none at all.
Everyone was without power for days, some weeks, with derption to their transportation not to mention friends & family, so, yes, everyone.
I live in NJ just 16 miles (by the way the crow flies) from Manhattan - never lost power.
Everyone was effected.
If you had no effect, and still don’t, from the storm, I’ll have been mistaken.
My point was that it was not “just another hurricane” but global warming doesn’t have to have anything to do with it.
“Everyone was effected.”
You are mistaken.
We never lost power and I live due west of Manhattan. Lots of people in New Jersey never lost power.
The storm made landfall from Atlantic City north. Most beach communities in New Jersey south of Atlantic City were not damaged. Lots of south Jersey, including scenic Cape May had no damage.
Lots of places on Long Island had damages, particularly on the south shore; while many Long Island towns did not.
Similar facts are true about Connecticut as well.
YOUR claim was that EVERYONE in New York, New Jsrsey and Connecticut was affected.
The facts are EVERYONE there was not.
I agree with your assertion. Respectfully, though, you missed my point.
Did you have trouble getting to wor? Wait on a gas line? get caught in bad traffic? Lose pay or revenue?
A 40+ billion dollar per stae NY & NJ is not just another storm. At $40 B for NJ, I cannot imagine you were not affected. Perhaps I am wrong.
“Did you have trouble getting to work?” No.
“Wait on a gas line?” No.
“get caught in bad traffic?” No.
“Lose pay or revenue?” No.
Again, even a major impact on a state does NOT mean “everyone” was affected.
Your use of the term “everyone” is as bad as scientists who claim “all” climate scientists accept the “man-made” global warming premise. It is false. It pretends it does not have to prove itself. It trys to draw “everyone” in as if “who can object”. It’s an indea sales mechanism. It’s not evidence.
Secondly, Christies needs to account for his $40 billion dollar statement. Of course, I realize in as much as it’s the media’s job to help increase public spending, there is not much hope that anyone will either seriously question the figure are attempt to force him to fully and totally account for it.
This is about an obsession against global warming, in which I can not have any input without incurring a discussion about it.
Two, it was not “just a hurricane, and that takes into account Jersy politics and Christie’s antics, who and who wasn’t affected, I don’t believe you were not affected, sorry.
no one said, and certainly I did not say, Sandy was just another “hurricane”.
secondly, you should be ashamed for calling me a liar just because my real live experience, and that of many others, does not jibe with your misunderstanding of who actually was and was not affected by Sandy.
thirdly, if you need to look for any “obsession” you’ll find it resides with those who preach that “climate change” is man made
You jumped onto this conversation which clearly started with a direct quote, “Sandy was just another hurricane”.
I argued the point and have been slammed by three obsessive anti man made global warming flamers for two days.
That is all i am going to say about it, now.