|

Does Irma embarrass climate-change deniers?

embarrassment

 

At this writing, much of the state of Florida is bracing for a direct hit this weekend by Hurricane Irma, which raises a few interesting questions:

What do the inveterate deniers of climate science think of all this talk of doom and gloom?

How will these skeptics explain away the havoc Irma is expected to visit upon the Sunshine State?

Is Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who ordinarily is a skeptic when it comes to climate alarmism, going to apologize for his previous senselessness?

Why should residents of Scott’s state heed his warnings about the dangers of Irma when he has a life-long reputation for scoffing at the findings of climate scientists?

Don’t get me wrong about this stuff. I’m not a denier, but neither do I want death and disaster to befall those folks who are deniers. I want them shamed for their anti-science bias, but nothing worse.

Oh, sure it’s almost funny to see certain Floridians hurriedly escape the state where they live to avoid something they said wasn’t going to happen. Rush Limbaugh comes to mind. But El Rushbo isn’t likely to be embarrassed. He’s based his career on the gullibility of the morons who follow his every word. I’m sure he’ll find some way to explain his casual skepticism about predictions of Irma causing trouble.

Climate-change skeptics tend to be political right-wingers. The Republican Party, for example, has far more of them than the Democrats do. Evangelical Christians also lean strongly toward the denialism side. But then, most of them also dismiss the scientific consensus on evolution.

One of the great ironies in all of this is that some Republican politicians probably are not as dismissive of climate science as Limbaugh, et al, say they should be. But the GOP is not known for tolerance of such dissent from the party line. A Republican officeholder who says he or she agrees with most Democrats on climate matters is almost certain to face a primary challenge from someone who wouldn’t dare stray from the party line.

I’m still hoping that Irma turns out to be far milder than expected. But if it doesn’t, I’m going to remember the names of the prominent people whose dismissal of the dire warning was based mostly on wishful thinking.

 

 

 

Share:

12 Comments

  1. Pat, be aware these recent ‘Acts of God’ are beyond the understanding of mere mortals. The most we can ascertain, regarding the havoc of Irma and Harvey, is that our God is very angry with us.

  2. Pat, late-breaking news: Rush Limbaugh will be evacuating his home in Palm Beach, Fla., just days after stating that creating panic around hurricanes helps advance a climate change agenda.

  3. Steverino

    What’s scary is that people listen to this buffoon on radio everyday as if it’s news.

    • Robert Hazz Geaunads

      Unlike Huffington Post, CNN and MSNBC and all the other msm outlets that are nothing but biased opinion presented as facts by politically partisaned hacks.

      Rush has said he’s an entertainer. The other outlets pretend to be arbiters of all things to be trusted. They even think of themselves as journalist. Yeah, right.

      This is another aspect of the future we now live in that Bill Clinton helped foist upon us with the legislation he signed known as The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Thanks alot Bill, and Hillary too.

      Stop defending that man. Much of what is wrong in the USA today happened during his administration. He’s the one that allowed for the banking industry laws to be changed that allowed for the great recession of 2008/2009 and the biggest worldwide depression we’ve ever seen soon to be upon us. Its coming. They can’t keep printing money. As soon as the FED turns off that spigot, down the market goes and it will be bigger than anything we’ve ever seen. The debt we owe as a nation as well as many other nations owe (especially in legacy cost, that should hit home to you in Illinois but its a problem everywhere), is unpayable and there’s only so much stuff we can buy as consumers to keep this charade going. For christ sakes, how many pairs of shoes do we need, same for just about everything else that makes up the fillings of our homes, yards, patios and garages.

      http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34789-democracy-in-peril-twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-under-the-telecommunications-act

      • Robert Hazz Geaunads

        PS – the longer the Fed keeps printing money, the more we pay for goods and services. The federal govt analyst have the gall to tell us that inflation is under 2%… they must not shop for groceries. They must not pay rent or make house payments. They must not buy new cars or furniture. So what if the interest rates are tiny, look at the price you’re paying for things.

        We’re screwed. First will be the depression then a few years later will be the world war, that follows all depressions.

  4. stop. He did not introduce the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, fake ratings, or lend people with no income too much money to buy homes.

    He did enough bad, but the mortgage fiasco was not his doing.

    • Robert Hazz Geaunads

      He signed the legislation that enabled the banksters and their underlings…. he didn’t have to sign it.

  5. How fortunate our ancestors were that the climate that they lived in didn’t allow hurricanes to exist.

  6. Steverino

    Another person allerget to science.

  7. Steverino

    Let’s try allergic.

  8. Robert Hazz Geaunads

    Im going to use a website the dems/liberals go to for proof against anything they don’t want to believe.

    “But Clinton’s hands aren’t clean of the financial crisis, because his administration played no small part in the longer term deregulatory trend. Clinton and his administration did not make an earnest attempt to maintain oversight over the big, hybrid banks created by the demise of Glass-Steagall, Day said. Additionally, the administration’s firm decision not to regulate other aspects of the financial market played a meaningful role in the crisis — for example, the absence of regulations regarding over-the-counter derivatives, which were becoming increasingly prevalent, despite internal warnings.”

    Its those derivatives based on derived income from reselling and repackaging loans (that would become delinquent at alarming rates) that played a big role in the 2008/2009 financial meltdown (and they’re still out there thanks to Obama and the Fed printing money).

    Granted, Bill Clinton didn’t make the banks give loans to people who should never have been qualified for them. That was a push by the GWB administration using 30 year old legislation and then blaming it for giving people loans that weren’t qualified to pay for them, just so they could show a swelling economy.

    Im an equal opportunity finder of faults.

    The one thing that pissed many off was Holder, and Im sure with approval from Obama, never went after the banksters for what they did… and created the next mess, that Trump is going to be dealing with soon, as throwing 9-10 trillion of printed money at the banks that were careless, just created a higher plateau for the economy to fall from. And I’ll say it again, at least GWB through his selected DOJ, went after Kenny Boy Lay and others for their role in the Enron mess.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/

  9. Shawn Robinson

    NOAA has a summary statement on global warming and hurricanes. I think it’s best to go to science articles for science issues. Really, whatever Limbaugh or the opposite end of the spectrum Al Gore, both have to say is irrelevant since they are not scientists.

    https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/#summary-statement

    “It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
    Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
    There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
    Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.”

Leave a Reply

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

CAPTCHA

*