h/t TriplePundit – FEMA, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, has issued draft guidance which demands that states include an assessment of climate risk in their 5 year disaster plan, or risk losing federal funding.
According to the FEMA draft guidance;
“Key concepts under consideration include strengthening specific requirements for:
…assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development. This will ensure that the mitigation strategy addresses risks and takes into consideration possible future conditions in order to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to increase statewide resilience;
supporting states in fulfilling mitigation commitments, including FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants management performance, throughout the five-year plan approval period. FEMA seeks opportunities to build and maintain mitigation capabilities and advance hazard mitigation proactively during plan implementation, and not solely at plan update and review;
clarifying that “formally adopted by the state” means plan adoption by the highest elected official to reflect the importance of plan implementation as a means to demonstrate risk reduction as a statewide priority;
and
coordinating and integrating the mitigation planning process with the whole community, including agencies and stakeholders with mitigation capabilities that are responsible for economic development; land use and development; housing; infrastructure; natural and cultural resource management; and health and human services. Engaging agencies and stakeholders with data and authority early in the planning process facilitates both successful plan development and implementation.”
The section on hazard assessment contains the following injunction;
“The risk assessment must provide a summary of the probability of future hazard events that includes projected changes in occurrences for each natural hazard in terms of location, extent, intensity, frequency, and/or duration. Probability must include considerations of changing future conditions, including the effects of climate change on the identified hazards.”
There is a threat of funding sanction against states which fail to fulfil the key requirements, the first of which is an assessment of the risk of “future climate change”;
“If FEMA determines that the State is not maintaining the mitigation plan and, therefore, not meeting mitigation commitments, FEMA may take corrective action, such as revoking or suspending the plan approval status. Corrective action may impact eligibility for certain FEMA assistance until such time as FEMA determines that the plan meets the requirements and restores plan approval status.”
With the threat of a lethal global Ebola pandemic looming, and an elevated risk of a repeat this year of last year’s brutal winter, if Great Lakes temperatures are any guide http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/water-temperature-of-the-great-lakes-is-over-6-degrees-colder-than-normal/ , it’s a comfort to know that Federal agencies have prioritised states devoting time and resources, to determining what they will do if the world warms a little.
Thanks to Eric Worrall for this story.
On the face of it, this seems to me to be little more than blackmail.
What’s the big deal? Most states could honestly perform the assessment and conclude that there is no elevated risk due to climate change.
Exactly. FEMA mentions only changing climate, so where is the global warming that should give us all these changes. They can just look at statistics and make some guesses. Eventual guess on some cooling prehaps.
Unfortunately the pawlow effect has set in, so whenever climate change is mentioned most peoble think of warming and all the scaring stories.
Danny,
In human history, during what period and in what location and in what landscape has the human condition improved most quickly? Under what rules did human society organize itself in these conditions? In the last twenty years, ask the same question. For insights into an understanding of the nature of the discussion about FEMA and the EPA undertaken here, the answer to these questions may be of help. For a more specific course of inquiry relative to the EPA, search EPA and DDT and malaria and EPA and property rights.
I can see some things to be planned here, and so I would hope the States do it right. New York City (and other areas), in the wake of Sandy, needs to assess the loss of coastal wetlands that can take storm surge. They therefore need to build up things like entrances to subways so they don’t become flooded. They can take the billions needed out of the rich retirement benefits they pay their giant bureaucracies – after all, it’s for the good of all.
Other states with no marine coast could take action following Anthony’s work, and relocate and renew all the broken temperature monitoring sites in their states, in order to develop a “long-term baseline for monitoring climate changes”. However, referring to various databases regarding rainfall, and tornados, and so on – coupled with the idea that a warming globe should see a decrease in weather events related to the conflict of warm and cold masses of air, they could simply punt on these events. States in the North, which were so bitterly affected by last winter’s brutal cold (and the scandalous “propane shortage” that drove prices from under $2/gallon to as much as $6 or $7/gallon) should submit a plan to greatly accelerate fracking in order to maximize propane reserves, while concomitantly cutting back on the installation of wind and/or solar power sources, which fail to meet winter needs, and boosting natural gas-fired power plants.
In this case, vicious compliance based on the most recent “global weirding” is probably the order of the day.
A simple state plan for FEMA, In 4 parts,
In winter ,survive and prepare for spring.
In Spring plant and prepare for summer.
In Summer, enjoy and plan for fall.
In Fall harvest and stock up for winter.
Climate change? Seasonal? Hypothetical?
Of course if any State succeeds in forcing FEMA to define this Climate Plan, it will collapse the meme.
As for any changes in the weather, have adequate reserves set aside to weather the storms.
But how does a State do this when faced with a deficient Federal Government.
Before FEMA, states would respond to their own disasters. The President might throw in some Federal help. So might neighboring states. Volunteers, churches and charities, too. Now we have to spend huge amounts of tax dollars planning for disasters and having the plans vetted by a bureaucracy. But most disasters don’t follow the plans anyway, and bureaucracies are notoriously stupid, slow-moving creatures. I liked the old system better.
I have been a frequent visitor to this site for about 6 years, but due to previous employment have not felt able to comment until now! This is a terrible idea and I’ll tell you why. I am an emergency planner and was head of the environment and health desk in the UK Cabinet Office until last November so I am speaking from direct experience and authority on this matter. When developing emergency plans you should always complete a risk assessment of your potential risks, so for somewhere like California the big ones will be wildfires and earthquake, Florida will be hurricanes (and storm related events), and other places will be snow/blizzard and so on. Pretty straight forward. When I develop a plan for a particular event it will be based on the risk of the hazard; this will be a combination of likelihood and consequence. If significant enough I will develop a plan, maybe a range of plans, test them, implement them and hopefully never use them. The issue about climate change – whether you agree one way or the other, natural v anthropogenic etc – is that it is a complete red herring. If I develop a hurricane response plan for Florida – which they will have – it makes no difference if there are more hurricanes or they are more powerful. My plan will be to deal with a large hurricane hitting a major metropolitan area. Now what would make my risk assessment/plans different would be if Florida was to experience extreme cooling. My point is that a changing climate makes no difference to emergency planning because you are already planning for the major risks which could hit. If something increased in risk because of increasing likelihood or consequences then it might appear higher on a risk assessment and therefore require plans that currently did not exist, but the chances of this occurring are low; but fundamentally the science behind it is so poor, modelling so bereft of anything meaningful you would naturally need to discount it. In short,a waste of time. Oh and for interest one of my main contributors to my previous job was the UK Met Office….but I’ll save that for another day.
PS Anthony great site and keep up the good work.
The presumption behind a need for a climate change threat response plan is thst the threat and hence necessary response plans are different from “ordinary” threats. Otherwise FEMA is simply asking for whatever was done already under normal procedures of government. Which again brings us back to: what is FEMA’s position on what scenarios we are likely to experience.
Doug
That is the premise behind their idea. The fact is that it is a bogus premise. Because, as I explained, there is no differentiation of threat between regular hazards and climate change hazards. The science behind possible climate change scenarios (those not consider ‘normal’ threats) is so poor that you can’t plan for them, other than using the plans you already have to deal with current threats i.e. out to 5 years or so. If you start planning for longer term threats – that are highly unlikely, you could even term them imaginary – then you lose focus on the real threats. One of the main benefactors of ‘climate change’ threats being mainstreamed, and many contributors have discussed this at length over the years, is that there is almost no accountability.
This is particularly useful for organizations (see used the Americanism there, that’s adaptation for you) that directly benefit from increased non-measurable threats, such as insurance companies that can put up premimums based on the priciple that these risks are in the ‘state, county, national’ risk assessment. ‘They have plans for this’ so it must be legit. This is not conspiracy territory either as the Sage of Omaha, Warren Buffet, has recently confirmed and having worked with insurers on environmental issues this is quite definitely the case. Insurers can, therefore, push up premiums across the board based on these ‘risks’. Of course insurers have their own risk assessments, which are not public. That is not to say that FEMA are being driven by insurers on this – they might be, might not – but that the main beneficiaries of this are insurers and re-insurers.
FEMA’s scenarios will likely be lots of bad storms, bad hurricanes, bad droughts (and all more frequently), and increased sea levels. They will push for these to have greater impacts upon major cities, critical infrastructure etc. There is unlikely to be snow, ice, blizzard type scearios until of course these happen whence it will be ‘AGW caused these too’ type memes.This isn’t rocket science stuff.
Fundamentally, the people pushing these types of policy are political flunkies who have no idea about what they are really doing. One of the downsides of the US system of government is that senior civil servants are political appointees so they will push political agendas; in the UK the attitude is that ministers come and go, so a policy that is bonkers will get ‘drawn out’ until the minister goes, policy changes, government changes.
Sorry for the long post. But this is a serious background issue with understanding why climate issues are pushed the way they are in the area of emergency management. I am currently working in Australia and the same issues abound here, but even worse.
Is this requirement lawful? If so, by what provisions of which act did Congress authorize FEMA to impose this requirement for funding?
This requirement was embedded years ago in the Stafford Act. It got some legs in the aftermath of 9/11 in an attempt to improve response to disasters and to mitigate when possible. Most of the states have enacted rules that require Local Mitigation Strategies, in order to get grant funding for certain funding sources.
Mitigation Planning is another one of those good ideas which have been abused by big-but Beltway bureaucrats.
‘the first of which is an assessment of the risk of “future climate change”’
Our assessment of the of the risk of ‘future climate change’, is that it is inevitable.
Head case stuff here!
…The truth is, it’s all Political “Garbage”.
Here’s the deal with mitigation strategies: these documents are prepared at the local levels based on local threats and conditions. The strategies are adopted at the county level with municipal and special district concurrence, and are then rolled to the state capitals for compilation and checking off boxes in the to-do list.
When we prepare these plans, we always give Mother Nature a vote in the matter. Given she is fickle in the short run, albeit predictable in the long run, it would be a mistake to attempt to mitigate disasters without understanding Mother Nature’s mood swings.
Stakeholders in the process are as apt to plan for a cooling climate these days as they are apt to plan for warming. By planning for cooling climate, these stakeholders have checked the box. Simple.
People in South Florida could care less as to why the oceans seem to be rising. Nobody can definitively state whether the oceans are rising or the peninsula is sinking. Is it CO2 or is it too many people withdrawing water from the aquifer upon which Florida floats?
Disaster Mitigation is a worthy effort for communities. Unfortunately the Beltway slugs take the local efforts and spin the plans into “Social Costs of Carbon” without considering the underlying cause of calamity probably has nothing to do with CO2. Legally, FEMA is the “insurer of last resort”. A good insurance company would have insured people to smart stuff to reduce disaster costs: cut limbs from above your house; have window shutters; etc. These yahoos at FEMA do not epitomize a good insurance company. They would prefer to push a political agenda that may or may not reduce the costs to the US Taxpayer of underwriting the effects of disasters.
You will never change the stupidity that exists in Washington DC. My advise is to develop the strategy, check the box, collect the money, and then spend it well on what needs to be done locally.
Mike: Excellent analysis. A lot of what you said is plain simple common sense. Cities and towns can and do make plans to mitigate/reduce risks for sensible weather events and/or geological events. And these plans extend up to the state level. What FEMA is doing is making an implied threat to the states. FEMA to the best of my knowledge was not granted this power by it’s enabling or subsequent legislation.
Without enabling or supporting legislation or Article 1 support, does FEMA’s plan violate the 10th amendment?
At what point would FEMA’s actions be defined as extortion? 18 U.S. Code § 872
Nice to discuss this in a blog but if anyone feels strongly about this, write your Congressman and Senators. It is an election year.
To put things into perspective, the proposed budget for 2013 was $13.5 billion and they have 10,056 Employees.
I doubt that his includes special funding for particular events like Sandy.
One big problem, once the Government takes Your hard owned tax dollars and has the power to distribute it, you are now hooked and often cannot break the control they have over your life.
Think this is enough $$$ to prepare if properly used?
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/budget/fema_fy2013_bib.pdf
At a Glance
Senior Leadership:
W. Craig Fugate, Administrator
Richard Serino, Deputy Administrator
Timothy Manning, Deputy Administrator for
National Preparedness
Established: 1979; transferred to DHS in 2003
Major Components: Protection and National
Preparedness, Response and Recovery, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation, Mission Support,
United States Fire Administration, 10
Operational Regions
Budget Request: $13,559,716,000
Net Discretionary: $10,008,716,000
Mandatory, Fees,
& Trust Fund: $3,551,000,000
Employees (FTE): 10,056
Disaster Relief Fund 4,852
Other Appropriations 5,204
Not sure why this comes up as leaving a reply to Anonymous, but it is intended for the person that says I’m full of conjecture and supports that with inaccurate conjecture on their part. That just makes me laugh.
If I were concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere, I’d be happy to do all I could as a non-scientist to support that. But since I’m not concerned about CO2 levels. the rest of the post is moot. Can you or anyone tell me how to make that more clear.
The folks that chose to assume they know what I’m thinking are so far off base it’s unbelievable to me.
It’s a very simple concept folks. I read that some believe CO2 levels are increasing. I don’t believe everything I read so I did some research. I found a NOAA site with CO2 reading on Mauna Loa in Hawaii that has been taking CO2 readings since 1958. I reviewed those numbers, added them up and viola`. I found CO2 levels have been increasing. And, being curious. I separated out the past 10 as a reasonable comparative sample time and discovered that the rate of CO2 increase is increasing in that time.
I’ve found that our atmosphere was once similar to Venus. And now it’s not. And it’s ebbed and flowed over time since. Therefore, no fear.
Ya’ll are just stamping your feet due to your own predisposition and trying to superimpose your bias on me. But you are just wrong!
Your turn!
Danny boy, you are out of your league, here.
Here is the truth: atmospheric CO2 is completely beneficial; it is the foundation of life, the source of all food for all plants and animals. Do not let the alarmists disquiet you. More CO2 means more food, more plants, and you do like plants, don’t you? Those _green_ things, remember? G.R.E.E.N. So, relax, take a deep breath and say to yourself “I don’t let them frighten me” Say this several times a day, with conviction, and you will feel better.
I promise.
I don’t let them frighten me. Wow, I DO feel better. I also, do not let ya’ll frighten me.
One thing I’ve been convinced of is that this site is equally as political as the CAGW sites, and that’s a disappointment. I was warned I’d find that to be the case (ironically from my CAGW buddy that I don’t see eye to eye with) and it’s turned out to be soooo true.
If one comes on here and does not tow the “party line” watch out. If one goes on the CAGW sites and doesn’t tow the “party line” watch out. But wait, does this paint me as a liberal with a hidden agenda? Depends on the eyes of the receiver.
It becomes personal, under the guise of science. Belittling occurs. Castigation. Bullying.
Assumptions are made, then applied to the “outcast”. Then defended by more of the above and then other folks (like um, mpainter) pile on. Well played. Quite intellectual and most impressive.
Well the good news is I accomplished my goal. I’ve learned something. Both sides try to be the “higher authority” and ramrod their agenda. And neither impresses me. As usually occurs, it’s likely that the “truth” lies somewhere in the middle.
I’ll take my seat in the middle as fitting me just fine.
mpainter,
Correctomundo. CO2 is harmless, and it is beneficial. More is better. But then we get this sort of nonsense:
I’ve found that our atmosphere was once similar to Venus. And now it’s not.
That is a scare tactic, no more and no less. Sure, Venus is 95%+ CO2. But so is Mars, and Mars is very cold. The alarmist crowd will latch onto anything to promote their carbon scare. That doesn’t work here.
The default position for Planet Earth is that CO2 is very low, and the biosphere could really use more of it. And since global warming stopped almost twenty years ago, that pretty much deconstructs the catastrophic AGW nonsense.
The people who have maintained all along that CO2 is not any kind of a problem have been consistently proven right. It is Algore and his lemmings that are constantly being proven wrong by the only Authority that matters: Planet Earth.
People who claim that we must still ‘investigate’ CO2, after decades of intense investigation that found nothing problematic, are the new Chicken Little contingent.
People like that want to alarm the public. But they don’t realize [or maybe they do] that it was only an acorn. The sky is not falling. CO2 is harmless, and beneficial. That’s all.
As always, contrary evidence is always welcome. I’ve asked for even one (1) AGW measurement. Where is it?
No such evidence or measurements ever seem to get posted. What does that tell us?
Thank you for supporting why I’m not (at this point) convinced that AGW or certainly CAGW is or will occur. You summed it up nicely for me.
But, I choose to continue to investigate.
I can’t read all this BS. The argument about the state doing such and such is largely a waste of time. Almost all emergency planning is done at the county level. That is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. I don’t see any acceleration in global weather processes. It all appears normal to me. Common sense needs to prevail and county control of emergency planning will make sure that lots and lots of regular people are making plans for necessary action.
At the time I am posting this comment there are 243 previous comments. Danny Thomas has post 50 of those. That would be about 20% of all comments.
Danny seems to have a dog in this hunt. He claims to be sitting on the fence. I think his fence is one of barbed wire but I don’t think he is comfortable there. I believe he has a Progressive discomfort.
You believe? Well, when “I believe” I’m asked to prove it so will ask the same of you.
Pile on. Others have, with similar inanities. And as I’m anti-bullying (hope that’s okay on this forum) I’ll stand up to anyone who chooses to jump in with political views and assumptions. Oh, and if there is any science, that’d be better.
#51
eyesonu,
I think “Danny Thomas” is H Grouse/beckleybud/Edward Richardson. Either that, or someone left the asylum door unlocked.
Also, you’re right re: ‘sitting on the fence’. We’ve seen so-called fence sitters here before; AKA ‘chameleons’. It’s just another tactic. He comes across as a concern troll: ‘But what if CO2…’ &etc.
These guys just don’t realize [or don’t want to understand] that the onus is on them to show any harm from CO2. Skeptics are just asking: ‘where’s the problem?’ Show us. But they can’t.
DB,
You’re a child molester, pedophile, and pervert.
I’m a skeptic and “skeptics don’t have to prove anything”.
Can you not see how ridiculous your argument is?
Keep trying to paint me as AGW and CAGW. You can do that a billion times and you’ll still be wrong.
OK: Once more. Danny raised the point about “changing climate”. Even he admits that climate changes and always has. What do “humankind” and most other animals do when climate changes? They adapt or die. Mankind is the only animal on the planet that can change his environment or at least devise “extra-natrual” ways of dealing with it. As others have pointed out most disaster/emergency planning is done locally. FEMA is just trying a power grab by tying it’s request for information to “changing climate”. I see nothing wrong with having written plans for dealing with disastrous events but no reason to try to assess what will happen when climate changes (as it will) simply because we don’t know what the climate will change to.In any event most of the time the change will be slow enough that we will be able to deal with it as it comes along.
By the wording of it’s proposed edict. FEMA is assuming that a “changing climate” constitutes an emergency. This is idiocy.
Grey,
Even if we disagree on FEMA I’m willing to admit you likely have studied FEMA in more depth than I. We can have political disagreement. Can you please share with others here that we have agreement that CC is occurring but we don’t know to what extent, if it will be damaging, and if we should study it more? I cannot get them to do anything (with about 3 total exceptions) but believe I’m AGW/CAGW and responsible personally for tens of thousands of deaths.
Science without reason = politics. I can get politics out there almost anywhere. I came here for knowledge about CC & GW. Looking at the title above it says:”WUWT” followed by: The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change.
On the political side, if we must get in to that. I can even see reason for any administration to bow to pressure. And that’s a very general statement that applies to both sides. Not CC/GW specific, but most any topic. I cannot say that that is going on here, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Most politicians look for ways to protect their backsides and grease palms. I’m not saying it’s right. Bashing one side or the other wastes valuable energy and is not my desire.
It’s also not my desire to have hard headed, closed minded, infantile “right fighters” to deal with, but I will.
Danny: As I stated above, this whole fracas (ie. this thread) is because, as I see it (and probably so do others), FEMA apparently seems to think that any climate change = EMERGENCY. Humans are a remarkably adaptable species. We have dealt with climate changes ever since we came down out of the trees and learned to walk on two legs and harness fire. I have no problems with having plans and procedures in place to deal with disasters that have happened in the past and will happen in the future. To assume that a changing climate leads to emergencies is plain idiotic.
Grey,
Please, please, please tell me that you’re not making assumptions about what I’m thinking.
I don’t find evidence that leads me to expect “emergencies”. It’s been shared with me by others here that I’ve used (unknowingly) some “code words” that trigger folks here to perceive me as something other that what I am.
Folks here obviously do not find evidence that leads them to accept CC as leading to GW. Fine. Folks elsewhere see it differently. So I’ve come here to find out what this side thinks and how they (you) support that thinking. And after wading through nonsense, I’ve been supplied some information that provides food for thought. I have and will continue to do the same via sites with a differing point of view than this one.
I’ll admit to potential naivete and certainly a lack of knowledge. That’s why I’m here to learn, and why I look elsewhere. But as there appears to be two sides to this discussion it would be imprudent (code word?) for me not to question both sides until I form a conclusion. I’m not a robot, and contrary to what others perceive I can think. I’m not a scientist, but I can learn. I see FEMA’s request as asking for data. Is that not what science is all about? Then policy is based on results and analysis. I can see how there is a negative perception of governmental agencies of many forms. But they are not all bad. There is good government and bad government and some in the middle.
The way folks here (with very few exceptions) have addressed me is disheartening, but it happens everywhere on the internet. If you read my very first post on this thread you’d see that I prefaced my involvement with a perception that people just don’t care about other people and it’s been on display here.
Thank you for speaking with me in a reasonable tone sans accusations.
Teach me. Provide sources. Help me to learn and make a data based decision. It doesn’t take much of a mind to figure out that this is a politically sensitive topic, but if it is then by driving folks away (and I’m not an easy target) how can that political battle expect to be won? Inclusiveness would seem to be more of a prudent (code word) method, can we not agree?
I have opinions, and those are subject to change and subject to staying the same.
I have no problem with providing data to FEMA that shows that the various states having emergency preparedness plans in place. But their inclusion of “Changing Climate” to me seems that they assume “changing climate” leads to more emergencies; and their implied threat of funding sanctions is simply government bullying.
I agree, and have stated as much that it’s heavy handed.
I went further (thinking out loud) that there may be a reason for that heavy handedness due to likelihood that some states might comply and others not. How effective might asking “please” be? I’d bet not very. I’ve not tried to research if the approach used here is dissimilar to other requests on other things like hurricane or tornado preparedness. Do you know?
But I also read that federal funding “may” (direct from the request) be withheld and not “would” be withheld.
Some here have suggested that some states may say they expect no impact, or project cooling (that’s still climate change) and those responses would hold as much validity to me as those that may project “dire” consequences. I’d be fine with that. I only hope others don’t read between the lines or try to put words in my mouth about this thought process.
Danny: I think if you look closely at what most people have posted here you will find that they agree that climate is changing, has changed in the past and will change in the future. What most of them (myself included) disagree with is that climate change is (according to some) by definition: dangerous and will cause an increase in emergencies. To date there is no empirical evidence that this is the case.
As I said, humans are very adaptable. Rising sea levels? Move further inland and to higher ground or build seawalls. Floods? Don”t build in flood plains or coastal wet lands. Tornadoes and hurricanes, Shelters and construction techniques that resist destruction. Earthquakes? Building codes that make buildings earthquake “resistant”. etc etc. All most all of these will occur whether climate changes or not. We can plan for these events and whether climate changes or not we will cope with them.
Grey,
I don’t think we have a disagreement in this post. Thank you for sharing your perceptions.
I really do appreciate the discussion.
I respect your views and hope you respect mine.
Darn it. I forgot to include my “post counter”. Think this is 54.
Saw an survey by Pew that indicates that liberals tend to use CNN/NPR/MSNBC for their source for information, and conservatives tend towards Fox. Now I’d be willing to bet that this will not come as much of a surprise to many.
Only bringing this up as why I tend to look for opposing sites to try to acquire more than one side of a topic.
59 comments Danny. You only miss counted by about 10%. You made 59 out of 259.
If you are for real and just want to understand then I would suggest that you to use the WUWT archives and begin your search for understanding starting about 5 years ago. Then you would probably think/understand like a lot of us here. Follow the links that you may encounter.
I am sure you are proud to have garnered so much attention on this thread. You can rest assured that you will be remembered.
LOL! Just had to go for 60! 10% off. What’s the allowable fudge factor for such things?
Archives. Ugh. I’m having heck keeping up with this (after all 60 posts), Curry, AGW, CAGW, NOAA, EPA, Nat Geo, etc, plus new stuff coming in from all sides. I appreciate that suggestion but would have to quit my job to do so. My CAGW buddy practically did.
Seriously, I’ve spent many hours recently going thru many sites and resources trying to establish building blocks for my foundation. My formal education ended years ago and although I enjoyed the earth sciences a lot much has been pushed back in my brain while I’ve been earning a living.
I assure you I’m for real. Do you think I’d endure the ………uh……..comments that have been addressed my way and stay around if I wasn’t?
So in addition to having a rep, I now have a rep? Sigh.
I do hope I’ve opened a few eyes about how folks oughta treat other folks if nothing else. And assumptions………..well, let’s just leave that alone.
Thanks for your comments eyesonu. If you have any other constructive suggestions I’m open.
Uncounted thousands of folks read for awhile first, so they can avoid using 53 (oops, 54) posts to tell us how naive they are and how little they know. When they do chime in, they’ve read enough to know what FEMA means by the term “climate change”-CO2 driven AGW- and when you pretend not to know that while repeatedly asserting that you spent “hours” studying NOAA’s CO2 measurements, you have lost credibility. You did not link us to threads where you allegedly get the same treatment from CAGW folks. Have none of them given you a link showing evidence the increased CO2 is causing, or will cause, some (any) harm? Maybe we’ll go there and learn. You found what you found at NOAA, what did you do then? Came here to read only the comment threads?! Stealey asked several times, I’ll put it nicely: CO2 increasing at increasing rate, SO WHAT? If your answer is “I don’t know”, then you should wonder why FEMA assumes climate change must be addressed. You seem determined to stay on the fence rather than emerge from your professed naivete, ponder this-If there is no evidence of human activity causing climate change, exactly what is FEMA seeking? Give us a shock and think before typing #55.
Naw. Don’t wanna spend time to “think” when I spent about 1/2 those posts or more defending myself from things that others have taken the liberty to assume about me and how or what I think.
So I’m slow at math causing me to take hours (probably 2) to find the source (NOAA, Mauna Loa) then going thru 58 years of data and adding them up, then doing the same for the most recent decade. It was data gathering and observational in nature. Nothing more, nothing less. Am I not allowed to state that observation?
I am fully on the fence and no amount of bullying will change that. I will continue to respond to those who chose to direct at me their perspectives. I’m just hard headed, like the majority that have attacked me personally.
I don’t care about what you think about my credibility. I’m here for me, not you although I find folks like you to be entertaining. Thank you for that. If you don’t care for my approach have me booted, or don’t communicate with me.
I’m not linking you to my personal emails where I’ve had years of communication with my activist CAGW buddy, but he and I have reached an impass in our discussion. Guess you’ll have to live with that. As a slow learner, I’ve just decided to look elsewhere as I was only getting CAGW side. So I’ve come here, Curry, NOAA, EPA and have and will continue to learn if you like it or not.
I came here (and other Watt’s topics) after being drawn by the topic. Much respect to Mr. Watts, but the text of the FEMA request doesn’t match the title. The title says:”‘Provide a Climate Plan or Lose Funding’” but in the text I read “may” lose funding. So how about a point for me for being a perceptive reader?
CO2 increasing at an increasing rate was an innocent observation. DB turned it in to a ridiculous assumption based on nothing and we bantered back and forth. Is that not okay to do? He served, I volleyed, and so it went. Where in the heck is your chastising of him (and others) for the assumptions? What about RA stating that I (Me?) am responsible personally for the deaths of tens of thousands? That’s bunk. Did you deride him?
I recognize bullying and am happy to push back. How else would you describe the actual (not biased) events?
So when one of you stands up and gives me a “shock” and calls down those that began the rift with out ANY BASIS IN FACT (about as unscientific as it gets). I’ll promise to try to conform a bit. Have you read any of the reasonable follow up discussions with others? Based your criticism on some of those more recent posts where for example I’ve been informed there are “code words” on this forum I’d be happy to consider it as having some validity. Until then, your post is more of the same.
Until proven (not speculative) that FEMA is doing nothing more that gathering data, that’s my naive assumption. And my assumption is as valid as yours w/o factual (not speculative) dispute. Other than that, it’s “just politics”.
Danny Thomas
October 22, 2014 at 2:25 pm
then going thru 58 years of data and adding them up, then doing the same for the most recent decade
Hello Danny
Go to this site and plot in whatever you wish, such as CO2 from 1960 to 2014. Then click “plot graph” and then “raw data” and you get the average of the 44 years right away.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot
Thank you. That’s gonna be fun to use and save a lot of time.
I, too, am entertained, Danny, I do enjoy a good tr*ll flushing. This P/A act is hilarious! Sure you’re allowed to cite CO2 data, did I say you couldn’t? You brought NOAA’s CO2 data in one of your early attempts to hijack the thread (congrats there, btw) as if it had some importance, why’d you bring up this “innocent” (??) observation? It’s likely accurate, but what of it? If CO2 increase and climate change are two different topics in your mind, why did you bring that into an article about FEMA’s climate change demand? I won’t look at your email, but you brought up the CAGW sites where you posted, why are you diverting this to your email? You know what I requested, why divert the subject? Won’t bother with your other digressions and brave stance against bullies, ’cause the proof you require is right before your eyes-FEMA is not merely gathering data, and it doesn’t just want updated plans, it must be done “in the light of a changing climate” and show “effects of climate change.” These terms are loaded, you seem to be alone in not knowing that. Naive assumptions “may” affect your view, FEMA and everyone else seems to know what that means. No fact knocks you off the fence, either you have tremendous balance or your CAGW buddies are propping you up.
You posted: “CO2 is increasing. So what?”. I posted (again, and again, and again) that I’d read it was and went to see for myself. I, for one, don’t believe everything that everyone tells me. Inquiring minds want to know. Even inquiring minds of so called “Trolls”.
Here’s an exact quote of when I brought up CO2 as it relates to growing seasons/Ag: see post #11 above if you prefer to use your own eyes.
“Honestly, I believe I can. Growing seasons are changing, so land use will change. Glaciers are melting, so land use and water will be (are being) affected. CO2 levels have increased, so agricultural production will be modified.
I’m not a scientist, but the above are things I have seen with my own eyes (except the CO2 part LOL). There are those much more educated in related fields that can make reasonable suggestions around which prudent planning can occur.
Don’t misread me. I’m not an alarmist in any way. I’m firmly on the fence not based on “belief” but based on historical evidence and research. This is not intended to be a political discussion as that will lead us down a path of zero benefit. The hope is “cooler heads” (warmer heads—again lol–just made that up) will prevail.
I’ll not repost the one I was responding to, but it’s the 10th post in this thread. Many, many others have stated how beneficial CO2 increases can be towards plant life. So how, specifically, can this innocently stated fact be construed as other than what it is? Please explain.
I did say I’d visited CAGW sites (including my buddies) but will ask you to show where I said I posted there. I’ve looked through this site and I can’t find it. Please show me.
You’re piling on just like the others, but without facts to substantiate. At best that’s pseudo science and supposition, at worst…………………………….
When I grew up, if folks speak with me, I speak back. Not doing so is rude. Just because some large number of folks chose to banter you blame me? What about them? And, I’ve not counted, but I’d guess that at least 30 folks responded to me. That’s a big part of my high number of posts. Heck this is our what, 4th back and fourth. Db I count 19 posts. Goldminor I count 8, RA was 5, Grey was 11. Those are conversations. What was I to do? Ignore? If you wish to be credible, go at DB. He started with assumptions as did RA. If one comes at me, I come back. I don’t care if you see it as passive aggressive.
As far as not knowing the code words on this site, this is only the 2nd topic on which I’ve posted. I’ve said I’m new and I’ve said I’m learning. I’ll likely forget, and make further mistakes. So should I just be taken out back and shot? Or, like some have done, should I be shared with and taught.
So get over your predisposition the same as many of the others. Use your own eyes. Read what I wrote. Stop responding if you don’t like what I have to say because I will reply.
Finally, PROVE that FEMA is doing something other that what I assume what they are doing. Yes, I said I assume because I don’t KNOW. And you don’t either. You have a bias as much as anyone.
Your turn. My post number 60whatever. Who cares. This is a public forum and I have as much right as anyone to post. So do you.
@Danny Thomas October 21, 2014 at 7:56 pm
Mario,
Thank you for a refreshingly reasoned response.
I’m new to this site and am unaware of the “hidden meaning” behind the term climate change to those who are not new. I appreciate that insight and can see how that can be assumed here when used by me as meaning something different than I intended. Heck, from what I’ve learned if the climate wasn’t changing that would be unusual.
On other sites, kind folks have shared much detail including graphs and charts and resources for me to use to learn.
I’m in agreement and have had a discussion that models are not effective. It seems that they average averages until a desired result is achieved. And by they, I’m referring to the CAGW folks. I’m familiar with the “hockey stick” and “the pause” and those certainly give me pause when I read the CAGW propaganda.
I don’t know how it’s come across that I’m a believer that CO2 is a hazard at this time. Please enlighten me as to what I’ve done to cause folks to assume they know what I’m thinking. If it’s due to talking in code it’s unintended.
I’m beginning to learn that both sides of this issue are political in nature leading to passionate, if misguided presumption. I knew that from what I’ve seen on the CAGW side and it’s been thrust upon me here.
This whole FEMA conversation comes across, from the direction of folks here, as some sort of “conspiracy theory” from the perception of this outsider.
I’m not those policy makers, and I appreciate what you’re saying. But wow, others have not been so kind in their foisting on me the decisions of others (as I’m sure you’ve seen). I’m human, too, and realize I’ve become needlessly defensive.
I saw the FEMA request as prudent and will research what you’ve shared. I am here to learn and will look elsewhere also. I know we cannot believe all we read or hear, so this has led me to my quest for information.
I don’t believe myself to be that idiot voter to whom you refer. I don’t buy the advertising, but instead seek out data from which I can base as reasoned of a decision as I’m capable of.
Prudent? Another code word? There are things that one cannot say here, and things one cannot say on CAGW sites. Based on the reaction I’ve had from most here, this is not a resource but instead is a blodgeon. Makes me wonder how many others seeking only information and not politics as usual have been turned away. Think this is something for the specific folks that have jumped all over me may be able to learn from if they’re capable of learning at all.
While I do not fully buy in to this side of the discussion I also do not buy in to the other side. But I am, and will continue to seek out education.
I truly thank you for your response!
++++++++++
Hi Danny:
Regarding where you wrote:
“I don’t know how it’s come across that I’m a believer that CO2 is a hazard at this time. Please enlighten me as to what I’ve done to cause folks to assume they know what I’m thinking. If it’s due to talking in code it’s unintended.”
I’ve been following AWG and CAGW for 6 years now. I know all of the talking points liberals have made, and so do most people at WUWT. All of the code words have been shown to be tools for use by useful idiots. You’re not an idiot, but most people are… and do not seek truth. They seek to be right in an argument.
When they use words that clearly come from CAGW sites as propaganda, those are code words. They are designed to make people spread propaganda which furthers “the cause”. These are like bumper sticker slogans. Reference to dying Polar Bears, questions like, what about the melting glaciers?, why do 97% of scientists say…?, the drought?, the record hot day?… all of these types of phrases are designed to imply it’s obvious that all of these things would not be happening if it were not for CO2.
And the truth is
1) There are more polar bears now than 50 years ago
2) Glaciers are melting and growing. There is record antarctic ice, sea level decline has slowed
3) 97% of scientists is a fallacy… it’s more like a bit over 50%, and the 97% number was very selective of a group of 40 or so people who answered one questions – which was nothing to do with CAGW.
4) The climate has actually been cooling, and stopped warming about 18 years ago.
Code word Prudent:
Do a google search for climate prudence… and have a field day!
There was a mantra not too long ago, where people read in the liberal blogs and newspapers that we should stick to the principle of prudence. And concluded that not acting prudently could essentially bring catastrophe to the world. People were being useful idiots telling skeptics that they were not prudent.
you wrote:
“I saw the FEMA request as prudent and will research ”
Doing research is not looking on blogs and reading people’s opinions. If you read enough of something, it’s easy to see a lot of people endorsing something until it’s safe to believe along with “the crowd”. What you are doing in this case is not research, but having others form your belief’s. They are not you own in this case.
Doing research involves looking for truth, NOT answers to questions. For example: EVERY smart person I know that believes in AGW as a fact, has NO IDEA at all that climate scientists KNOW that there is such a thing as the Pause in Global Temperatures. By the way – that is another code word – PAUSE. Anyway – most people do not believe me when I tell them global warming stopped in 1997 (yes there was a spike in 1998 with El Nino. But the trend since 1997 has been flat on the satellite records.
Doing research means being critical, and not believing me or anyone, until you look for truth. So if someone tells you the globe is warming – you can look at the only thorough complete coverage of global temperatures and see that the globe is cooling or mostly flat trend for half the satellite record! You can decide if dropping temperatures means warming.
By the way – dbstealey may have lost patience with you and it got personal. I find him quite brilliant and agreeable. But you got on his bad side probably because we who believe have studied and sought the truth are deeply offended by the harm that the policies in place that raise energy costs for all people and that this hurts the poorest the most. We are offended that people at a young age are taught to hate oil and energy if it’s not from a tax payer funded solar panel – because they’ve been indoctrinated by misinformation.
I am deeply offended by FEMA because it is NOT reasonable to spend money planning for global warming when in FACT a 1 or 2C of cooling from today’s temperatures will do a lot of real harm right now and cooling is just as likely if not more likely than warming for the next 10 to 30 years.
Nice comment Mario
Thank you eyesonu 🙂
Mario,
Thank you for treating me like a fellow human even if we’re not in complete agreement.
I’ve posted on one other Watts discussion (nowhere near the record I have here), and I in fact made the point you did about polar bears.
I’ve asked questions about the 97% of Climate Scientists. What is the definition of Climate Scientists? How does one join that club? Science by consensus not fact?
I’ve said what you’ve said about some glaciers melting, and a few (that I’m aware of) growing. I acknowledge there are questions to be answered.
If I’m using code words (prior to modifying my approach to just plain entertainment) it’s come from my buddy who’s maybe left of CAGW or as someone else on another thread said “CACA”. (Made me laugh out loud). I’ve gone back and forth with him (just like here) when he spews outrageous comments (like Db has done with me).
If Db will become reasonable, I will too. Until then if he chooses to joust, I will too. All he needs to do is read what I wrote, not what he assumes and we can move on. As long as he stands by his outrageous assumptions (and RA too) I’m happy to just go back and forth. That applies to anyone. I don’t (without saying I am) make assumptions. I make mistakes, but they’re honest. If anyone points out an assumption I’ve made that I’ve not disclosed, I’m happy to backtrack to set my record straight.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand how I can come here and admit I’m firmly on the fence seeking knowledge and education and instead of getting that being accused of thinking things I’ve never stated and being responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands. Blows my mind.
I’m familiar with the “hockey stick”, so called modeling, “the pause”, etc. I’ve called my buddy on each and every one of these. His reaction is so political and lacking science that it’s not even funny. He says he’s a reporter but never reports the “anti” side. To me, that’s not reporting. He is an engineer, and a PE so he has credentials. That in no way makes him right (that’s for you RA). And that’s coming from me, a fully disclosed non scientist. But Db and RA have been no better.
I promise you I’m reading the articles. I see a slant here. I see a slant on Curry, my buddy has a slant and he’s been involved in CC/GW/AGW/CAGW since about 1998. I’ve looked to CBO for numbers, I’ve looked to NOAA for data, EPA, USDA, and so on. No matter what others have predetermined about me they’re just not accurate. I’m now seeking out perspectives here, on Curry, RealClimate and will look further. Short of a lie detector (which I’m willing to take—-how’s that Db?) I have no idea how to get it through here that I have no ulterior motive other than to seek information so I can make an informed decision. I’m no lemming.
I do not hate oil. I drive a giant diesel truck (but have checked my carbon footprint out of personal curiosity). I live in an RV and travel this amazing and wonderful country and have met many wonderful folks and had many outstanding conversations. I’ve seen results with my own eyes of changing climate, and I sleep just fine without worry that “the sky is falling”.
I can see how you or others can perceive FEMA as seeking information about global warming under the guise of climate change, but I don’t have a bias (at least not yet). Is speaking to that such a crime?
I’ve looked at the historic warming/cooling charts. I’ve looked at CO2 (uh, oh, I said it again). As well as changing growing seasons. Fire risk. Changes in forest composition. Changes in wildlife composition (mostly habitat related from my analysis), and so on. No matter what anyone here thinks, I’m no dummy. But I will stand up for myself. And frankly, I cannot believe others have not stood up for me against those that are foisting their perceptions on me. This is still America, and I will continue to speak freely. To he (double hockey stick—that pun entertains me if no one else) with anyone who tries to stop me.
Thank you for the discussion. I hope we can continue. I don’t know it all. Heck, I realize I don’t know much. And the more I learn the more I realize I’ve got a lot to learn. Please continue to share with me.
@Danny Thomas: You wrote: “Based on the reaction I’ve had from most here, this is not a resource but instead is a blodgeon.”
WUWT is unlike sites which promote the idea that CO2 is warming the planet. On a warmist blog, if you post that the models are wrong, and give evidence of such, your post will be deleted. The moderators here do not ban ANY ideas that are on the topic of climate. If you’re off topic, you may get a warning by a real human being. There are certain behaviors that are not accepted. However, this is a free forum and just like I would be berated if I went to a union meeting saying “I think unions are bad”, people here are going to be human and we are all subject to the words and judgments of others.
Stick with it. Danny!
[Oh, mann! And you are assuming the moderators are actually – well – human. (What a compliment!) .mod]
Mario,
Yeah. I’m beginning to figure out the code. Others try to spin me up, so I’m just returning the favor. I figured that would be a “hot button” as I’ve seen it elsewhere.
There is blatant bullying taking place and I will not back down to assumptions and commentary that I did not generate but others are foisting upon me.
The Chevron analysis is exactly my point to RA. It was soooo easy to do a quick google search and find where MY government has contributed $24B (according to the CBO who works for us all {except RA as it’s not his government} and is as unbiased as I could find in short order).
I’m not trying to pick a fight, but if one comes to me I’m happy to engage. RA came at me with BS and I came back (knowingly and admittedly) with BS. My government? So I’m sure RA has renounced his citizenship.
If he participates (and anyone else here) with any form of investment that receives a profit from any “energy company” (are they then less complicit than I in causing the “death of tens of thousands” , at least I admit I participate in the profit motives and am not against capitalism) then they are hypocrites. But I’m singled out by RA? Wow. Just wow!
Since I’ve attempted reason w/o success I figured why not just go for the entertainment value. This has become nothing more than a political “tennis match” devolving from a discussion about FEMA. Heck, even Anthony Watts must be smiling (yes, that’s an assumption on my part) if he’s watching as the subtitle seems to be intended to bring about a bias towards FEMA without a basis in fact that I can find in the original article. There may be basis in fact in his mind, but I don’t see it and unlike others here I do not profess to be able to read others minds and I’m honest when I toss out an outrageous assumption.
If others wish to continue the game, I’m in. If others wish to project a more mature discussion, I’m game.
Nowhere have I said I’m worried about CO2 levels, the increases in CO2, or the increase in the rate of increase of CO2. However, having said that, I “believe” it’s “prudent” to keep an eye on it. Lots of code words there, huh?
I’m being treated as a real live person on Curry. My CAGW buddy won’t hardly talk to me because I challenge him. I challenge folks here and am met with arbitrary unsupported assumption and at this point I’m frankly enjoying it.
Plus, I’m apparently setting records for my post count as an added bonus!
As always, DT does not take a stand. Complaints, self-aggrandizement, etc. But no definitive stand.
TAKE A STAND, Thomas! Your “What if” arguments are pointless and tedious. You argue for the sake of arguing. What’s your point, anyway?
The rest of us would like to decide if FEMA has a leg to stand on. The rest of us want to know what, exactly, the CO2 scare is all about. Is it a problem? Or not? Quantify it! Show us the problem, if any, and not in your vague, nebulous way. Take a stand!
I’m beginning to think you don’t have what it takes to man up and take a stand. So how about it, bud. Do you? If so, let’s see it. Show us the specific problem. Show us what you think we need to “study”, and what you think we need to spend more money on.
Take a stand.
Who do you think you are to tell ME what to do? You won’t do what I tell you to do? Do you think you’re better than me or in charge? Dude, get over yourself!
I’ve been clear on my position on the FEMA request. That’s my stand. Until the supposition that’s been presented here is substantiated with factual evidence as opposed to conjecture, I choose not to change my opinion. Is that clear?
Challenge my manhood. Boy is that immature. You accuse me of using “tactics” and you try this kind of sophomoric approach. Ha!
I have zero problem with the FEMA request. I have some problem with the potential heavy handedness, but the request says funding “MAY” be withheld not WILL be as is stated (inaccurately) by Mr. Watt in the subtitle. I have no problem with states responding with factual/data/evidence based replies no matter on which political side of the aisle they fall. That’s my stand. I’ve said it before and if you had enough brain to comprehend the simple words I’ve used here and posted before you’d get that.
If you choose to superimpose your assumptions here again, that’s your choice. It’s not my words, but it’s still your choice.
Man. Grow up. You are perpetuating this discourse based on sheer nonsense.
Danny, you now have 65 comments out of 274. That’s just shy of 24%. It must be a WUWT record!
Did you personally write this new and exciting FEMA proposal?
Nope. Not even close. I work at an RV Park.
But even though I’ve not “started” these attacks, I’m more than pleased to continue or end them at the choosing of the other posters.
But I’m proud of the record!
No other responses to the other comments/questions I posed to you other than a post count. I’m disappointed.
Danny Thomas: you wrote this, ” I have zero problem with the FEMA request. ”
++++++++
And I think you endorse FEMA forcing the planning for climate change.
It’s important to have information when our rights to thrive are being trampled upon (by taking our tax money and increasing the national debt and energy prices.)
You’ve looked into this subject more than the average person, and that you find zero problem, is frightening to me. I say frightening, because it should not be that hard to understand that FEMA is now holding hostage those who do not expend time and energy (taxpayer money) on the nefarious claim of “climate change” which means exactly what? That climate changes? No, that is not what they mean.
FEMA means CO2 caused catastrophic global warming and we must spend money on planning for catastrophic events related to that! We know this because this is catastrophe planning they are asking about. However, we also know that there is no evidence at all by any observational metric that CO2 is doing something that will bring catastrophe. There is no evidence. (right?)
Here is where I would like to know what you think. Is there any evidence that CO2 is driving or could drive the climate towards catastrophe due to causing it to warm by more than 3 degrees C by 2100? Or answer this, Do you doubling think CO2 will cause more severe storms or weather? Or even this, Do you think any weather events have been made worse by increased CO2? Or answer this, Do you think more CO2 has led to faster growing plants, with higher crop yields and added to bio abundance?
Allowing FEMA to go forward with their wishes will in fact cost more tax payer money to be spent, along with more huge increases in the cost of energy. It’s time to take what you know and decide the fate of humanity. Spending money we do not have, raising energy costs (especially on the poor), and stacking up debt that future generations will need to default on is precisely caused by those who endorse the CAGW narrative.
Give me ONE single benefit that is real that we get for all of this cost.
I trust I’ve asked some hard questions that deserve answers since allowing for the continuation of this narrative that CO2 is bad and needs to be reduced at all costs is frightening to me. The prudent thing to do is to thrive and make people’s lives better. Not do things that are killing our current prosperity, preventing future prosperity and literally causing death tolls to stack up.
Mario
Mario,
Here’s the first sentence from the request:” assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development.”
As I asked in my very first post, am I missing something?
There seems to be consensus on this forum, that the climate is changing. So planning for “changes in land use and development” (apologies in advance) seems prudent and reasonable. Based on the consensus being a given (correct me if I’m wrong) and the seemingly regional changes are not planned for then I can just imagine an uproar with “we should have seen this coming” being thrown around. And administration, no matter which side one is one, feels pressure from it’s constituency. Right or wrong, that’s a fact of politics and it comes no matter which “team”. Republicans pressure their representatives for things which benefit them. Democrats do the same. It is what it is.
I’m not for FEMA dictating the feeback itself. That’s up to the states to do. As, for example, growing seasons are changing in a less than uniform way across our country then one should expect the states analysis to differ based on location.
I’m not assuming that FEMA has any motive other than what is stated in the request. I’m just not. What/if games can be played based on ones “leanings” but they are assumptive. Absent evidence to the contrary, I see no reason NOT to ask for this data. Self feeding bureaucracies exist at local, county, state and federal levels. But not all are bad. Some are good, some are average, and some poor. I don’t presume this to be poor sans evidence. Please provide evidence if you can, and I’d be happy to consider it. I’ve asked on this very thread and no one has replied with other that supposition. I understand “distrust” but is it valid or just perceived? I frankly do not know.
You say:”nefarious claim of “climate change” which means exactly what? That climate changes? No, that is not what they mean”. Please help me by sharing what they really mean. Not what anyone thinks or presumes, but what they really mean.
The current administration appears to be less than “beloved” on this site. But this administration will not exist in perpetuity. The next one may be received entirely differently. And if that entity happens to align with folks politically, then I can’t help but believe that the reception to the polices of said administration would be different. Is that unreasonable?
I don’t see an issue with CO2, but I cannot speak for FEMA. But I also have no evidence leading me to have heartburn based on the request on it’s face.
To your questions:”Here is where I would like to know what you think.
Is there any evidence that CO2 is driving or could drive the climate towards catastrophe due to causing it to warm by more than 3 degrees C by 2100?” I have seen no evidence personally that leads me to CAGW, at this time. But I don’t have “all the evidence” so that may be ignorance.
Or answer this, Do you doubling think CO2 will cause more severe storms or weather? I’m waffling here. There are some unusual events (fronts traveling east to west opposite typical jet stream flow )that honestly I’ve not yet studied. It’s on my list to look in to. Any sources would be appreciated.
Or even this, Do you think any weather events have been made worse by increased CO2? Not that I’m aware of. My CAGW buddy professes higher strength storms and greater frequency, but my research indicates frequency to not by atypical (hurricanes specifically). If my memory serves me, I think I found like 3 years of “higher than average frequency” and either two or three (think it was two) of lower frequency and the rest were effectively “average” based the most recent 10 year time frame. Please don’t take me to the bank on this as it’s off the top of my head and it’s been a few weeks ago. But should be fairly close.
Or answer this, Do you think more CO2 has led to faster growing plants, with higher crop yields and added to bio abundance? Funny, this very question was in my mind as we were just talking of growing seasons so I was trying to look up what the make up was, based on first/last frost days vs. CO2, but I’ve not gotten there yet. Not meaning to deflect but I’d venture a semi educated guess that the increases in CO2 may have at least a minor impact. Cannot substantiate at this point.
Please keep in mind that the narrative that “CO2 is bad” was projected on to me as an assumption from Db and others, but those words did not come from my fingers. I’ve asked him a bazillion times to prove where I said that but he deflects by stating some crap like “skeptics don’t have to prove anything”. That’s just B.S. when it originated from him.
Now, I have a question for you. What factual evidence do you have that leads you to distrust the motive of FEMA for the request? Should we not be doing this:”assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development.” on a localized (IE state) basis anyway as we all agree that the climate is changing? So what’s wrong with supplying that to FEMA?
And I have to call you out for using a “code word”:”The PRUDENT thing to do is to thrive and make people’s lives better.”
@Danny Thomas: You wrote “The price of energy is high. And it’s not at least in part because of a profit motive? Huh?”
+++++++++
You are treading on more dangerous territory. The controller (head of accounting and finance) at our old company told me the energy companies are gouging us. That is a code phrase by the way. I asked him to go with me online and look at Chevron’s financial statements to find the answer to this question.
“What change in gasoline prices would there need to be to make ZERO profits for one year.?”
We literally calculated that the complete profit margin for Chevron would be zero if the price of gasoline were 2 cents per gallon cheaper. That’s it. Said another way – yes – Chevron had record profits, and they gouged us 2 cents per gallon.
By the way – Chevron is public, so people who own shares or make a living from Chevron also benefit from selling energy products.
Danny Thomas constantly cries about his hurt feelings. Then he does his part by making comments like: “Whatever you assume in your feeble mind is your choice.”, and calling those he disagrees with: “pseudo scientists”. [“Okay pseudo scientist…”], and other insults. A hypocrite, no?
Yep. And a crybaby. DT kissed up to another poster, dp — until that commenter put DT in his place:
“…notice how DT speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He also likes to freely insert extra meaning into your words, via assumptions, presumptions all of which have no basis in reality.”
From then on, that commenter is a no-goodnik, and he deserves DT’s insults. Just ask DT. Or read his subsequent reply.
Man up, ‘Thomas’, and answer one simple question, upon which the entire debate revolves:
Can you post even one (1) empirical, testable measurement, quantifying the amount of global warming supposedly caused by human CO2 emissions?
I have asked that same question of you repeatedly. But your non-response is always to misdirect, and to deflect, and to move the goal posts, and to whine about your hurt feelings, and to insult, and to try to appear superior [as if]. But you never answer the question!
If you don’t have an answer, then just admit that you don’t know. But I think you have a problem with admitting you don’t know, after calling us ‘pseudo scientists’. You can’t very well label the rest of us as incompetent, and then admit that you don’t have a scientific answer yourself. That would be psychological projection, no?
You are a concern troll. You express constant, vague concerns in such a way that they cannot be answered. That is a tactic. And you always couch whatever you say in such a way that you can always claim, “I didn’t say that!” [I never said CO2 is harmful.] And what little you do say is so vague that it is never quantifiable. That, my friend, is just a tactic. Your tactic. I see through it, and no doubt other readers do, too.
I’m always harping on you to take a stand, for once. But you never do. You have tactics, me boy. You are trolling here, instead of having a rational scientific discussion. When you’re not complaining about your hurt feelings, or insulting other commenters, you are extremely vague. Much too vague. What good is that? It amounts to endless “What if” scenarios. No rational person operates like that.
So: what is your point? Is it that, ‘What if’ we find vague problems, in the vague and nebulous future, we should be obligated to do something now? That we should “investigate” endlessly, just like we have for decades — with no results? No findings that CO2 is harmless in any way? That would be stupid. It has been ‘studied’ to death. And then what? Are you offering to pay for more pointless “climate studies” yourself? No? You want other folks to pay for your latest, greatest idea?
No dice, pal. Ain’t gonna happen. That freight has been paid — doubled and squared. You’re not going to come along now, as the noob here, and start telling people what they have to pay for. Those days are gone.
Take a solid stand for once. Not a fake stand, where you can claim, “I didn’t say that!” Man-up for a change. Take a stand — and make it clear to everyone.
Otherwise, you’re just trolling.
======================
Werner,
Yes, the WFT site is excellent. Here is the RSS satellite warming trend from 1997:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend
Db,
Don’t hurt yourself falling off that high horse.
Your question:”Can you post even one (1) empirical, testable measurement, quantifying the amount of global warming supposedly caused by human activity?
My answer: “No I cannot”. I have never said I could, never implied I could, and have only been accused of those coming from your mind”.
Is that clear?
Now answer my questions: Where did I say CO2 in it’s current volume is a concern. Additionally, where did I say the increasing atmospheric CO2 is a concern? And finally, where did I say the increase in the rate of increasing CO2 is a concern.
ONLY a liar would make an assumption and apply it to another. A real scientist would look at the data (my written words without your input) and base their analysis only on the facts presented. So which are you? Pseudo, or scientist?
I answered your questions. Now answer mine. My response is concise and direct. Limit yours to the same.
I chose NOT to pick a side (at this time), no matter how you wish to push me to, as I don’t feel I have enough information. So get over it!
Yes, we should investigate endlessly. We do not live in a static world. My opinion and I’m allowed. I pay for all kinds of studies every day. Climate change included. If you’re an American, you do to. Some things support your view. Some don’t. If you don’t like it, vote. I do. If you lose, either accept it or leave. I do. If you win, celebrate. I do.
Okay, so I’m trolling (in your view). Feel better? Won’t change anything. No matter if it pleases or displeases you I will continue my research, my reading, and my decision making process. Deal with it!
mario,
You might also point out that the government’s cut of gasoline prices is far more than Chevron’s. In a fair and honest world, the gov’t’s cut would be less than Chevrons, because Chevron takes all the risks. The government just takes.
dbstealey: I was going to – but I forget the number… was (Federal) it 40cents per gallon? And then there are state taxes… I think total is half!
PS – another comment of mine has been in moderation for a long time! I mentioned you… I’m taking a soft tone. Trying to be nice and give benefit of the doubt.
[Reply: Nothing found in the Spam folder. ~ mod.]
Inre: Federal and State taxes on gasoline
It was probably dbstealey who informed me that the states also pass laws against listing the price of gas along with the various taxes and fees on every receipt.
It’s even worse than that: Back several years ago, the gas companies were even prohibited against placing a placard on their own pumps showing the price of gasoline at the well, the costs of transporting and refining the oil, the cost of shipping the refined gasoline to the stores and gas stations, and the taxes paid at each step, plus the states road gasoline taxes, sales taxes, and the federal and state and county sales taxes and income taxes on the retailer, the wholesaler, the refiner, the oil company, and the exploring and shipping companies.
Just as my total tax bill on my income is 54%, if the total profit is 2% of the oil companies sales, they are even taxed 50% of THAT!
And those dividends? THOSE are also taxed when they are sent to the investors and stock market. Might be now, might be later (retirements and such, but the money sent out to the ivnestors IS STILL TAXED when it is received (income taxes), and when it is spent (sales taxes and road taxes and house taxes; plus every gas bill, every electricity bill, and every telephone bill has more taxes in it. Every retail sale made after the direct taxes are paid has a tax penalty as well.
And those who support these new FEMA demands are still spending twice what they take in every year…….
Werner,
Here is another view of WFT data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
As we see, CO2 continues to rise, but temperatures have not followed for many years. Thus, anyone can see that CO2 does not have the global warming effect that was claimed.