NYT: Lets Help Hurricane Harvey Survivors By Taxing Them

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

As Hurricane Harvey survivors struggle with the aftermath, the cleanup, with power outages and portable generators, reporters far away in comfortable offices in New York think they have a solution to their problems; a new carbon tax.

We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?

Nicholas Kristof SEPT. 2, 2017

Imagine that after the 9/11 attacks, the conversation had been limited to the tragedy in Lower Manhattan, the heroism of rescuers and the high heels of the visiting first lady — without addressing the risks of future terrorism.

That’s how we have viewed Hurricane Harvey in Houston, as a gripping human drama but without adequate discussion of how climate change increases risks of such cataclysms. We can’t have an intelligent conversation about Harvey without also discussing climate change.

Remember also that we in the rich world are the lucky ones. We lose homes to climate change, but in much of the world families lose something far more precious: their babies. Climate change increases risks of war, instability, disease and hunger in vulnerable parts of the globe, and I was seared while reporting in Madagascar about children starving apparently as a consequence of climate change.

An obvious first step is to embrace the Paris climate accord. A second step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps through a carbon tax to pay for tax cuts or disaster relief.

We also must adapt to a new normal — and that’s something Democratic and Republican politicians alike are afraid to do. We keep building in vulnerable coastal areas and on flood plains, pretty much daring Mother Nature to whack us.

A week and a half ago, Republicans and Democrats traveled to see the solar eclipse and gazed upward at the appointed hour, because they believed scientific predictions about what would unfold. Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/opinion/sunday/hurricane-harvey-climate-change.html

I once had to power my home for a week from a portable generator, thanks to outages caused by a major tropical storm. A portable generator is an expensive way to produce power, but its better than letting the food spoil.

The last thing people in that situation need is higher fuel bills.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
September 2, 2017 4:57 pm

The New York Times reaction to almost anything is more taxes, more gun control, and restrictions on everyone’s speech but the legacy media.

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 2, 2017 5:28 pm

..it’s backfiring on them big time….even the nuts think they are nuts

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 2, 2017 10:25 pm
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 3, 2017 3:33 am

Bring in an Oxygen Tax . . . . to put a stop to all that exposed man-made metal that is likely to ‘catastrophically’ go rusty once the Houston flood water subsides. Actually, why not tax the whole sky whilst we’re at it. Sorted.

Reply to  GeeJam
September 7, 2017 10:37 am

If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
Don’t ask me what I want it for
If you don’t want to pay some more
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 3, 2017 4:31 am

The New York Times, along with other similar publications, is a left wing fascist propaganda rag.

Reply to  ThomasJK
September 3, 2017 8:05 am

It is no accident that “The New York Times” is an anagram of “The Monkeys Write.”

old white guy
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 3, 2017 4:51 am

the level of stupid exhibited by Kristof cannot be measured.

Reply to  old white guy
September 3, 2017 8:46 am

It’s a sicK, foolish raNt, another anagram. Is that a coincidence? Or a cosmic joke?

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 3, 2017 7:55 am

As someone whose income puts me in the top 1% – I am all for taxing Harvey survivors to help them. Oh not all of them just the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-regulation, Trump voting, climate change deniers.
While we’re at it let’s throw in a big tax increase for the residents of Tangier Island who are asking taxpayers like me to bail (pun intended) them out.
But I refuse to give even one penny more of my hard earned money to people who refuse to help themselves.
And guess what? This elite, swamp dweller has a very good accountant.
I thought Republicans and conservatives were all about “personal responsibility” – I guess not so much.

Reply to  seasealya
September 3, 2017 10:09 am

Seasealya, just keep voting for Democrats who like bigger government, higher taxes, and greater spending of other people’s money and see how long you remain in the “top 1%.”

Richard Bell
Reply to  seasealya
September 3, 2017 12:07 pm

The areas of the flooding predominantly voted for Hillary in 2016. Why are you throwing fellow democrats under the bus?
I apologize for assuming that you are democrat supporter, if you are an independent.
If you did vote for Hillary, then you voted for Big Government to step in and spend your tax dollars on bail outs, even if the “disaster” is large corporations not being profitable enough to please their shareholders. You voted for government bailouts of whatever, even big banks that were stupid enough to chase big profits by taking big risks and then lost too much when things went sour, so you have no right to complain when the government does exactly what you voted them to do, even if the hands on the levers of power belong to someone that you disagree with.

Reply to  seasealya
September 3, 2017 1:36 pm

Fascinating how the troll believes that the only way to help yourself, is to vote for politicians who will take other people’s money and give it to you.
Believe me, the people of Texas are helping themselves, and most of ;them aren’t going through government to do it.

Reply to  seasealya
September 3, 2017 1:38 pm

Most of the recent problems with banks was due to government regulations that required the banks to lend to people who had little chance of paying back the loans.

Reply to  seasealya
September 3, 2017 6:03 pm

Seasealya: so what exactly is your point? Please clarify.

Reply to  seasealya
September 3, 2017 6:03 pm

Seasealya: so what exactly is your point? Please clarify.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  seasealya
September 3, 2017 9:32 pm

What an incoherent rant. If you really have a point, then you will need to articulate it much better.

Reply to  seasealya
September 4, 2017 5:37 am

As noted by others here, the majority of those displaced and affected by this storm in Houston are likely Hillary voters. But one thing to consider, the majority of the “Cajun navy” who brought their bass boats and duck hunting boats and big trucks in to help those affected are likely Trump voters. So, yes, Republicans and conservatives are about personal responsibility, and they are about not waiting for government and instead rolling up their sleeves and giving of themselves to help people in need.

Reply to  seasealya
September 4, 2017 5:39 pm

seasealya, as a matter of urgency, contact your psychiatric support person and get them to review your medication.

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 3, 2017 2:02 pm

Predicting the orbit of the moon involves a relatively simple equation with only a few variables. All of which are not only known, but known with very high precision.
Predicting the climate involves thousands of very complex equations, some of which aren’t solveable.
The variables are still being discovered and few of them are known with any degree of precision whatever.
Only a total moron would compare the two.

Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2017 3:20 pm

He is writing for morons and other elites who cannot think for themselves. Good point in the writers efforts to compare two things that have no relationship whatever, but these folks with a liberal education in today’s Universities lack essential critical skills. Also they lack the ability and data to sell the CAGW mantra so they grasp at straws.

Robert Sandor
September 2, 2017 5:03 pm

“A second step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps through a carbon tax to pay for tax cuts”
Ahh, a tax to pay for tax cuts. Brilliant!

Reply to  Robert Sandor
September 3, 2017 12:19 am

Yeah, I thought that was pretty good too. These idiots do not seem to realise how patently stupid their own ideas are. Also taxes cost a lot to implement and administer, so after the cost of collection, administration redistribution via ‘tax cuts’ , there will probably only be 50% of what was collected actually getting paid back to anyone. The rest being wasted by faceless pen pushers and bureaucrats.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Greg
September 3, 2017 9:33 pm

That’s the whole point of the scheme.

Sweet Old Bob
September 2, 2017 5:11 pm

The Gray ” Lady ” is senile …??

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
September 2, 2017 6:24 pm

The :”Old Gray Lady” has been senile for decades.

Reply to  firetoice2014
September 3, 2017 1:38 pm

She’s been brain dead for decades.

Reply to  firetoice2014
September 3, 2017 5:46 pm

The NYT never recovered fully from the loss of credibility engendered by the Jayson Blair debacle.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
September 3, 2017 4:51 am

In Michael Mann’s recent testimony to Congress, he had the unmitigated gall to compare other scientists working on climate to Lysenko. Lysenko, of course, used his scientific creds to prop up Stalin’s deadly policies on collective farming, leading to perhaps 10 to 20 million starvation deaths (mostly in the Ukraine), and perhaps hundreds of thousands more being imprisoned in the gulag system, many of whom died in Siberia.
During the horror of the Holodomor, the NY Times printed the Communist apologia of Walter Duranty, and the Pulitzer Prize committee awarded this ass clown a Pulitzer. This reminds me a little of when the Nobel committee awarded a Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC.
Earth to Michael Mann: In your analogy, I’m afraid YOU are Lysenko!

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Mickey Reno
September 3, 2017 4:52 am

And the NY Times is still just the NY Times.

September 2, 2017 5:14 pm

> Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?
Umm let us count the ways. Nah, rather than belabor the obvious let me rip the author for his disrespect of the scientific process by calling for belief and respect rather than verify and reproduce.

Reply to  Rob Dawg
September 2, 2017 5:44 pm

I thought that Climate Scientists do not make “Predictions”, only “Projections”. I do not think the NYT got the memo…

Reply to  AussieBear
September 2, 2017 6:25 pm

Actually, they only generate potential scenarios. (HT: Willie Soon)

Reply to  Rob Dawg
September 2, 2017 7:38 pm

The joke here is that they are playing on the extreme accuracy of astronomical predictions, particularly the moon and Sun, and pretending that the fantasy climate models, which are truly not science, are the same thing. Really sad, but some people will fall for it.

Reply to  higley7
September 3, 2017 4:15 am

Be very careful about that “some people will fall for it”. The timing and spread of this idea that “we believe in science about eclipses so we should believe in science about climate change” has all the hallmarks of a well-planned propaganda campaign.
There is nothing “really sad” about it, higley7; it’s another snappy slogan which is going to be very hard to counter if we aren’t alert to what is happening. It’s 15 words of glib plausibility which any decent ad-man would be proud to have come up with; can you refute it in 15 words?
If you can then let’s spread your 15 words as widely as possible because if we can’t then the climate propagandists are going to get away with it again.

Reply to  higley7
September 3, 2017 6:29 am

Newminster – can’t refute it, but how about these 10 memorable words:
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”.

John Schneider
Reply to  higley7
September 13, 2017 10:11 am

“Solar models have verified. Climate models have not been verified or validated for a reason.”
15 words.

Carl Johnson
Reply to  Rob Dawg
September 3, 2017 7:29 am

The author asks us to believe in the equivalence of the Law of Gravity ( solar eclipse) with a dis-proven hypothesis (excess CO2 by man causes temperature increases from 1970 to 1995). How un-scientific.

September 2, 2017 5:17 pm

I suggest a surcharge of 50cents a newspaper instead.

Reply to  Pat Childs
September 2, 2017 7:05 pm

Ummm…50c per paper??
I’m kinda guessing that this might not (should not) make much of a return….plus we all hear about the declining paper sales.

Reply to  D B H
September 2, 2017 8:44 pm

Ok, Make it $1 per newspaper. !

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  Pat Childs
September 3, 2017 4:13 am

That will eliminate its usefulness as a fish wrapper.

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
September 3, 2017 6:32 am

I would prefer not wrapping my fish with the NYT. The ink would transfer to the fish… as would the headline…

September 2, 2017 5:20 pm

The reason we stared up at the appointed hour is that the model for solar eclipses has stood the test of time. It works for both past eclipses and future eclipses, and is verified at least twice annually (there are at least two solar eclipses in some form, on average, every year) The climate models have verified, um, never. That’s why it’s folly to throw money at any possible ‘solution’.
Now, if they are willing to equate the two theories, climate change and solar eclipse prediction, we should absolutely take them at their word. When the models for AGW fail to predict, and we know they will, then we can stand and say “Al Gore has no clothes.”

David Dibbell
September 2, 2017 5:25 pm

Kristof asks, “Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?” Before Harvey, the last major hurricane landfall on the U.S. mainland was twelve years ago. Imagine this headline: After Twelve Long Years, Blind Squirrel Finds a Nut! Do we suddenly expect more nuts to be found reliably now?

Reply to  David Dibbell
September 3, 2017 6:56 am

Not cooking the planet, just cooking the story…….

September 2, 2017 5:26 pm

how climate change increases risks of such cataclysms….
Obviously, It makes a major hurricane hit the US every 12 years

Bryan A
Reply to  Latitude
September 2, 2017 11:46 pm

Back in the late 1800’s there used to be periods of annual Cat4 storms hitting Texas and gaps of 3-4 years without them. By the mid 1950’s the Cat4 storms changed to decadal occurrences. Now they average one storm every 12 years or so. From 1970 to 1988 there was a 19 year drought of Cat4-5 storms along the Texas coast.

September 2, 2017 5:42 pm

“We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?”
Because Harvey is real and “Climate Change (CAGW)” is an unproven speculation.
Hurricanes have been around longer than humans or their CO2 by-products. Hurricanes are not dependent on humans or their CO2 by-products for their existence. There is no known connection between human activity and hurricanes. Only in Kristof’s deluded mind.

Reply to  TA
September 3, 2017 5:08 am

If we’re going to blame Harvey on climate change, could we in fairness give climate change credit for reducing the frequency category 3+ hurricanes hitting the US mainland?

September 2, 2017 5:44 pm

Demonized something then demand higher taxes to constrain the demon. That’s what it means to be progressive.

Janice Moore
September 2, 2017 5:44 pm

We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?

In a word: evidence.

September 2, 2017 5:45 pm

“Climate change increases risks of war, instability, disease and hunger…”
Climate Change for the Catastrophists’ religion is analogous to the Christians’ concept of sin — anything that’s bad is the result of Climate Change.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
September 2, 2017 6:49 pm

You are no better at analogies than the NYT author.

Reply to  Sheri
September 2, 2017 8:42 pm

I am still stumped as to why there are no videos or photos of white people looting from houses and shops.
Is this racist photography at work?

Roger Knights
Reply to  Sheri
September 2, 2017 10:59 pm

There was a long story online a day or two ago about Houston’s drug addicts wading through water to score at certain hangouts. (I thought it was in WaPo but I couldn’t find it when I googled.) It sounded like most of them were white. Perhaps they’ve done their share of looting.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
September 2, 2017 10:10 pm

The religion of the CAGW believers is not original with me here. See:

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
September 3, 2017 12:30 am

The point of an analogy is to point out the similarity of two different things in order to infer further similarities which lead to further insights. Christianity defines what is bad by calling it sin.
You analogy is not an analogy.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
September 3, 2017 8:56 am

To liken AGW-ism to religion is not to opine on the quality of any religion, but to note that a science that is like a religion is not valid science. The analogy holds.

September 2, 2017 5:47 pm

One could also sell their tragedy in the charity market. A once in a lifetime fund raising opportunity not to be missed. So you don’t forget send in your donation to the Union of Concerned Scientists before midnight tonight. They are very very concerned. Really.

September 2, 2017 5:54 pm

“Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?”
Because none of their predictions ever come true.
Ever hear the one about the boy who cried “wolf”, when there was no wolf? The townspeople quit believing his cries after a while. That’s where we are with CAGW: The promoters of CAGW put out all these scare stories, and none of them ever come true. What do you expect people to think?
The alarmists claimed there would be more numerous hurricanes as a result of CAGW, but we’ve had over a decade drought in major hurricanes and the first one that comes along is pointed to as being the result of CAGW. What about the lack of hurricanes over the last decade? How does that fit into this formula?
The “more hurricanes” claim was wrong. That is reality. When will the alarmists acknowledge they were wrong? Hey, Kristof, if they are wrong about this, what else are they wrong about? Think about it.

Janice Moore
Reply to  TA
September 2, 2017 6:02 pm

Right on, TA.
{N}one of their predictions ever come true.
(Note: the apparent “Wow, look how closely they models match the data from about 1975 – 1995!” is: the code writers TUNED those models to MIMIC the data.)
Kristoff think? lol He is paid to promote Big Wind and Big, er, Sorta Big, er, Big Someday, Solar. He’s a cheap, hack-for-hire.

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 3, 2017 12:32 am

Actually he is probably a fanatic believer is the CAGW religion , that is why he was hired.

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 3, 2017 4:39 am

Checking the status of one of my utility stock holdings, American Electric Power (AEP) announced it awarded the EPC (engineering, procurement & construction) contract for the 350 mile “Wind Catcher Tie Line” 765kV Transmission Line to Quanta Services Group to deliver electricity from an Oklahoma Wind Farm near Guyon to Tulsa OK. This is not OK. Where is Rick Perry’s over haul of the Department of Energy and who is providing the financial backing of this boondoggle? Still too many special interest groups sucking on the Green Koo-Aid.
Time for me to unload my position and short the stock. Will miss the 3+% dividend.

Reply to  TA
September 3, 2017 6:01 pm

CarbonBigfoot says:
(AEP) announced it awarded the EPC (engineering, procurement & construction) contract for the 350 mile “Wind Catcher Tie Line” 765kV Transmission Line to Quanta Services Group to deliver electricity from an Oklahoma Wind Farm near Guyon to Tulsa OK.
Didn’t you know the AEP board of directors had been infiltrated by greenies for many yrs? They accede to every demand from the Sierra Club.

Janice Moore
September 2, 2017 5:55 pm

Because of the lies about human CO2
which result in unreliable or no electricity,
thus, dirty water and cooking with cow dung:
families lose something … precious: their babies.
And people die in buildings which would not be covered in cladding but-for-CO2-lies.
And people freeze to death because the solar and wind hu$tler$ create artificial market share for their sc@ms by rate-surcharges making reliable energy too expensive to buy or by taxes (subsidies) making prices of necessaries rise to the point that some people have no money left over to heat their home.
And the only, the ONLY, explanation, at bottom, for all this energy poverty is:
As for the NYT, follow –> the –> money.

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 3, 2017 10:30 am

The people without electricity and cooking on cow dung are not in that state because of renewable electricity or spending on climate change…
They are in that state because provision of electricity through fossil fuels has not reached them…
They are leaving that state because of (among other things) the provision of solar LED lighting, solar panels and fuel efficient stoves.
Why shouldn’t we insulate the homes of the less well off? (UK is a cold country – though nobody is freezing in it due to UK renewable energy)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 12:08 pm

And the various Paris-site agreements have helped the cow-dung-burners to have the reliability of fossil fueled electricity just how? “Green” thrown at their leaders?
“Here’s a windmill and a solar panel. Enjoy the dark.”

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 1:44 pm

They are staying in that situtation because AGW’ers are fighting against cheap power and requiring them to use expensive unreliable power.

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 3:20 pm

(UK is a cold country – though nobody is freezing in it due to UK renewable energy)
Surely you jest.

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 5:30 pm

“They are in that state because provision of electricity through fossil fuels has not reached them…”
Another lie, Skanky?
This would appear to demonstrate you’re wrong – as usual.
I thought you were a big Guardian reader too…
Now go and apologise to Dr. Crockford.

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 5:32 pm

“(UK is a cold country – though nobody is freezing in it due to UK renewable energy)”
Really, Skanky?
How many times must I post this and prove you to be a liar?

September 2, 2017 5:56 pm

Kristoff is not the sharpest tack.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Pat Childs
September 2, 2017 6:11 pm

Agreed. And what I always find baffling about such people is: they do not care. They are willing to look like ignorant, illogical, buffoons just to make a buck. An emotionally healthy, strong, person would rather be poor than to ever sell their integrity.
Kinda sad, really. Either he is so hard-up for cash that, blinded by fear, he will intellectually prostitute himself for money, or he has such very low self-respect that he places almost no value at all on his reputation for clear-minded thinking and integrity.
Makes you wonder, as you peer into the eyes of such a man (in imagination): “Is there anyone in there?”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 2, 2017 6:14 pm

Clarification: “Agreed{, except that I think Kristoff is not dull; he takes on that persona to write what is patently ridiculous to make money}.”

Tom Halla
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 2, 2017 8:08 pm

Nicholas Kristof is nasty piece of work, with a consistent air of great concern. He, as you might remember, started the Joseph Wilson/ Valerie Plame foofraw back during the Bush II administration, despite knowing Wilson was both inflating his resume and a paid Kerrey staffer.

Reply to  Pat Childs
September 3, 2017 9:23 am

It’s Kristof, with only one ‘f’, and he is the winner, according to Wankerpedia, of two Pulitzer prizes. Unlike, well, virtually nobody, he’s against human trafficking, you’ll be relieved to discover. You’ll also be amused to know he is FOR education reform. Not vouchers; no, no, no. He believes that by, among other things, raising starting teacher salaries from $39K to $65K per annum, current problems can be fixed. (We all know how well throwing tax money at an embedded problem solves it.)

Leo Smith
September 2, 2017 6:09 pm

Liberalism is a form of indentured slavery/ the mafia takes all your wages and uses them to cover the debts you owe them that never get less.
Giving you back about 30% of what you paid in taxes for ‘public services’

Janice Moore
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 2, 2017 6:24 pm

Why, Mr. Smith, don’t you want live like this? Eating rice and beans day after day after day…..comment image
(photo caption: “Typical street scene in Havana.”)
Dictatorships of the elite are just soooo cool.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 3, 2017 4:14 pm

Those Cubans are probably still better off than some of the Africans in the poorer regions. If nothing else, I expect that they do have generated electricity.

September 2, 2017 6:09 pm

To somehow equate the predictive skill and certainty of orbit mechanics to “predictions” related to Climate Change are asinine. At no time in the lead up to the August 2017 solar eclipse did I see any use of the words “could”, “maybe”, “should”. Of course the solar eclipse “could” have been obscured by clouds, given the uncertainty of local weather conditions. Those words most certainly do not apply to the fact that the eclipse would be taking place at a precise time and place regardless of clouds or not. Nor have I read that the path that it took across The United States from coast to coast was somehow “unprecedented”.
On the other hand, nearly every “Prediction” or Climate Change related research paper is peppered with those words.
Not sure folks would have been happy with Astronomers saying that the 2017 solar eclipse could occur sometime on or around the 21 of August and its path should run west to east across The United States, but we are not exactly sure where…

September 2, 2017 6:10 pm

As a Houstonian tired from days of helping neighbors demolish ruined houses and like up water damaged stuff, I would like to invite the NYT to go eff off.
We have a situation in Houston where 40 years of negligence by mostly democratic Mayors left us highly vulnerable to floods.
That the NYT dared to use the first powerful storm in over a decade as a prop to continue their modern version of pimping for Stalin, now with climate, is infuriating.

Janice Moore
Reply to  hunter
September 2, 2017 6:27 pm

Amen, hunter. Hang in there, weary warrior. You Texans (as a rule) sure are doin’ America proud.
Take care.

Reply to  hunter
September 2, 2017 6:28 pm


Ric Haldane
Reply to  hunter
September 2, 2017 7:56 pm

Hunter, FYI…… one cup of Borax in a gallon of warm water in a sprayer is one hell of a weapon to use on mold. The mold will never grow back on a surface once treated. I talked to Borax a few days ago. They can not promote 20 Mule Team for mold removal as they have an agreement with a company they make mold remediation products for.Good stuff. On new construction, unexposed wood from the frame up a few feet treated three, times. will never have mold or termites. There is a degree of fire protection also.It doesn’t star in suspension well, so it needs regular shaking. That’.s a pretty good deal for $7 a box. .

Ric Haldane
Reply to  Ric Haldane
September 2, 2017 8:02 pm

stay in suspension

Reply to  Ric Haldane
September 2, 2017 8:20 pm

Thanks on the borax.
In our humid climate, it is a staple that we keep in stock and use frequently.

Gunga Din
Reply to  hunter
September 3, 2017 12:35 pm

“They” aren’t concerned with what you really need. “They” are only concerned with what they want.
PS my wife and I have made a contribution to The Salvation Army. An avenue where what is needed is more likely to reach those in need in Houston and others in Harvey’s path.
I know there are other avenues but that’s the one we chose.

September 2, 2017 6:30 pm

This is an Opinion Section piece. It is not the opinion of the editors of the New York Times.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 2, 2017 6:46 pm

@ Kip Hansen: It may be an opinion section piece, the fact that it is in the New York Times means that it will (for most people) carry more weight than it deserves. Regardless of that, it is still a shoddy piece of writing and deserves all the savaging it gets.

Reply to  greymouser70
September 5, 2017 7:49 am

mouser ==> Yes, true that, but attention to detail is important. If one reads the anti-skeptic blogs, you will see the same formula “WUWT claims….” followed by something from a comment posted by some angry misinformed ‘tweenager.
Nichoias Kristof says “Let’s help ….” etc.

Tom Judd
September 2, 2017 6:47 pm

I have a different headline for our dear Nicholas Kristof:
‘We don’t deny the Cajun Navy, so why deny what the Cajun Navy used for their rescue operations?’
So, what did the Cajun Navy use to rescue Houstonites from the floodwaters, Nicholas? Flat bottomed fishing boats? Flat bottomed fishing boats powered by carbon spewing (admittedly an overkill description), gasoline burning outboard motors? Hundreds of ’em? And, oh yes, even a few (somewhat awkward in the shallow waters) gas burning inboard stern drive ski boats? And, a few gas powered jet skis thrown in the mix? And, how did those boats get there? Did those brave, generous, volunteer Cajun Navy sailors drive them there towed behind their … diesel and gas burning pickup trucks?
And, what about the professional rescue crews, Nicholas? Don’t those Coast Guard helicopters burn hydrocarbons? What about those propeller driven swamp boats that were used? And, besides the watercraft, weren’t a few high ground clearance diesel trucks used in rescue operations?
Do you deny that, Nicholas? Didn’t you see those rescuers and the Cajun Navy on the news the last several days.
Maybe it’s just me, but I would say that the existence of what I’ve just described is one whole helluva lot less deniable than what you’re attempting. In fact, climate change and Harvey is nothing if not an abstraction, but what I’ve described is concrete, yet you sir, refuse to see what was right before your very eyes, and refuse to see it in favor of your abstraction.
Yeah, Nicholas, let’s use this tragedy for the perverse end of taxing out of existence the very same appliances that rescued people from it.

Reply to  Tom Judd
September 3, 2017 7:12 am

It’s all fun and games…until the real cowboys show up

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Latitude
September 4, 2017 9:48 pm

Floatation tyres not so good in water.

September 2, 2017 6:47 pm

“Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?” If you ask questions like that, you are showing how scientifically illiterate and totally duped you really are. One must assume you equate science fiction with reality and are 100% clueless. Only a truly unknowledgeable person says something like that.

September 2, 2017 7:12 pm

A century ago my family vacationed in Rockport, my wife graduated from high school there, and we currently live there. I have been in and run from several hurricanes since 1960, including Celia (1970). Although in a relatively secure place, we decided to leave the morning of the storm partly from the information provided by the brave hurricane intruding fliers. Recently I went to a talk at the Rockport Historical Society about the damage Celia did to the Jackson Seafood Company. This time it will be to the tourist and sports fishing industry, all those trailers we knew were temporary, and especially to those who could least afford it.
Stay tuned, will let you know in a week or so how it should be classified (to the nearest decimal?). Because of the lack of much storm surge and rain and minimal damage to the much larger adjacent supportive Corpus Christi it could have been (and may well be someday) much worse. However, based on one days examination the winds were severe, damaging very old live oaks even in thick woods. Some was the result of what the chamber of commerce types call “smart growth,” basically aggressive expansion and annexation which produces increases in property taxes without much attention to rare events. They did worry more about storm surge, which usually causes more mortality.

a happy little debunker
September 2, 2017 7:16 pm

if you reduce worldwide population growth, less babies will die & less CO2 emissions will be emitted.
Be kind to our planet – always wear a franger!

Ed Zuiderwijk
September 2, 2017 7:58 pm


September 2, 2017 8:01 pm

Instead of trying to regulate the earth’s climate by taxing the bejesus out of people, if you must insist on a tax for some purpose, how about using it to relocate housing from vulnerable flood plains (one of these areas reportedly has flooded 3 times in the past 5 years or so – stupidity to keep returning and rebuilding there) or raising the height of houses above flood levels if possible, building flood mitigation dams etc. The more houses are plonked on top of the ground, the more of the ground is paved with impervious streets of bitumen and concrete, the more water runs off, the more flooding there is . When I look around at some of the enormous flood plains in my region, I wonder at the size of the regular rainfalls that must have happened in the not so distant past to create them. And people have built all over them, paved them etc., councils have approved housing development all over them, no doubt happy to rake in the rates income from them.

Reply to  Bushkid
September 2, 2017 10:40 pm

I often wonder how much of flooded areas are so-called “reclaimed” land and the sea/river/ or whatever body of water is just reclaiming that “reclaimed”?

Reply to  Bushkid
September 3, 2017 6:29 am

Wasn’t there some federal regulation about taking flooding and climate change into consideration before building stuff? which got repealed just a few days back?
what is for sure that the flooding in Houston was predicted – like in this piece from June:

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 8:49 am

cleantechnica again, Skanky?
You never give up, do you?
When are you going to apologise publicly to Dr. Crockford for maliciously libelling her?

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 10:38 am

Perhaps you’d like to comment on the substance of that article -that Houston was known to be at risk from extreme weather events?
Or you can keep on with the personal attacks… and I have nothing to apologise for.

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 10:58 am

Houston was vulnerable, like New Orleans, because so much of its area has subsided in recent decades, due to aquifer drawdown. Also, much more of the metro area has been paved over.
The flooding has nothing whatsoever to do with “climate change”.

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 2:03 pm

Poor griff, he still wants to pretend that global warming is happening.

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 2:04 pm

Houston has always been at risk from extreme weather. This hasn’t increased in recent decades.

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 5:34 pm

“and I have nothing to apologise for.”
Proven slander not a problem to you then, you unpleasant little creature?

September 2, 2017 8:02 pm

I have a better idea, instead of a carbon tax which will hurt the poor, how about a wealth tax on all residences priced over $1,000,000. It could be a yearly tax set at 5% of the properties value.

Monna M
Reply to  Mjw
September 3, 2017 6:26 am

People who buy more expensive homes ALREADY pay higher property taxes by virtue of the fact that their houses are valued more highly. Property tax is a wealth tax, which is what you are proposing.
Let’s say there are 2 houses in a fictional town named Centreville. If the mill rate is 2% and one house is worth $100,000, then the property taxes are $2,000. If the other house is worth $1,000,000, then the property taxes are $20,000. See how that works?

Reply to  Mjw
September 3, 2017 2:05 pm

I find it fascinating how so many people assume that the solution to any problem is to take even more money from those who have more than they do.
Greed isn’t pretty, even when you do it through government.

September 2, 2017 8:06 pm

Worrall you are an idiot

Reply to  David Dirkse
September 2, 2017 8:39 pm

That is a very profound statement, David the D*ckhead.
The media haemorrhages with 50 poor lives lost in Texas, but ignores 1700 lives lost in the sub continent.
I know who the idiots are.

September 2, 2017 8:44 pm

Many people left the rust-belt and moved to Texas for jobs. Houses had to be built someplace to accommodate the influx of people looking for work?

Patrick MJD
September 2, 2017 9:27 pm

Something similar happened in Australia. The Gillard Labor Govn’t during the Brisbane floods a few years ago raised the, nationwide, Medicare levy 0.5%. It was supposed to be temporary, it’s still there. So yes, taxing people is the way to resolve natural disasters.

Roger Knights
September 2, 2017 10:14 pm

“Climate change increases risks of war, instability, disease and hunger…”
It actually reduces the risk of hunger by increasing agricultural productivity. That in turn reduces the risk of the other three items. What does increase hunger (via higher global food prices) is the corn ethanol program.

September 2, 2017 10:43 pm

It would seem that Nicholas Kristof needs a padded cell in which to create his fantasies.

September 2, 2017 10:46 pm

Mr. Kristof adjures;
“Remember also that we in the rich world are the lucky ones.”
Taxing “carbon” inexorably raises the price of food in general. That means millions who can barely keep themselves and their families fed now, will slip below survival levels . . Not so many in the rich world, one hopes, but the poor in the poor world? The ones this man is asking me not to forget about? I didn’t forget them . .

Reply to  JohnKnight
September 3, 2017 2:06 pm

The rich aren’t lucky. They are rich because they worked hard.

Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2017 6:31 pm

Being born into a rich family happens, Mark . . and being born into extreme poverty.
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

September 2, 2017 10:59 pm

Taxing carbon dioxide is like taxing oxygen is like taxing life …
Why not tax political idiocy? It would generate a endless amount of money …

Roger Knights
September 2, 2017 11:25 pm

“Flooding Not Increasing In North America And Europe, New Study Confirms ”

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
September 3, 2017 1:38 am

I thought deforestation on a massive scale along with not very effective government was the problem in Madagascar and haven’t seen anything that explains how “climate change” has been responsible for the choice to raise money by chopping trees down. Clearly this extraordinary effect of climate change on human behaviour needs urgent investigation with massive research funds at Kooky Headcase Unversity, which no doubt the NYT will support. But then the NYT reporter has been to Madagascar and knows better.

September 3, 2017 2:02 am

Except that the number of hurricanes and strong hurricanes have been decreasing since 1985 and 1990 respectively. But I don’t expect they will let the truth get in the way of their new religion…

September 3, 2017 2:13 am

The major problem with Harvey was not the weather or climate, it was uncontrolled building on flood plains. Most of those suburbs were not there 50 years ago, and shound never have been allowed. Or if there was pressure to build, most of the properties should have been low-rise flats (four or five story). Modern flats like this (in Europe) are delightful places to live, with all conveniences and transport links close by.
But no, everyone in America wants their 1/4 acre plot complete with wooden shack, and so the city limits spread uncontrollably (and everyone needs a car to get around, because the city is so big). There is no point blaming the weather (or climate) if the real problem lies at the steps of city hall and their (corrrupt) planning department.

Reply to  ralfellis
September 3, 2017 7:17 am

Aren’t those called no go zones in Europe?……..

Reply to  Latitude
September 3, 2017 9:57 am

No, they are the Banlieus – the immigrant ghettos that surround Paris and Brussels. The other suburbs are filled with delightful 21st century flat complexes that are a delight to live in and convenient for transport and services. And all car parking is in the underground car parks. Nice places to live.

Reply to  ralfellis
September 3, 2017 2:08 pm

God forbid people should have the type of housing they want, rather than the housing others think is appropriate for them.

Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2017 3:10 pm

You mean people WANT to be flooded out of house and home?? A strange American tradition, obviously.
Elsewhere, in the logical world, the authorities will say ‘don’t live there, it floods’. Or they will demand all houses to be built on stilts. Or they will demand that only flats are built. Or they will demand a huge flood barrier around the entire city.
But they would not allow uncontrolled construction on a flood plain. That would be stupiididy.

September 3, 2017 2:43 am

“A week and a half ago, Republicans and Democrats traveled to see the solar eclipse and gazed upward at the appointed hour, because they believed scientific predictions about what would unfold. Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?”
Why should we? They can’t predict where a hurricane will make landfall yet. They can’t predict the weather accurately all the time. Sometimes it changes within even a 6-12 hour period. And Nature’s yearly emissions of CO2 far outweigh ours. Not to mention none of their predictions have come true so far. They’ve been 100% wrong.

September 3, 2017 2:47 am

“An obvious first step is to embrace the Paris climate accord. A second step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps through a carbon tax to pay for tax cuts or disaster relief.”
Sure, they’ll use it for disaster relief. When something freezes over….
They always make it sound appealing, don’t they?

John Dowser
September 3, 2017 3:09 am

Astounding how one NYT article can display the whole spectrum of erroneous and catastrophic thinking on so many big issues:
1. “imagine that after the 9/11 attacks, the conversation had been limited (..)without addressing the risks of future terrorism.”
And what did invading Afghanistan & Iraq in the name of battling global terror exactly accomplish? Not wanting to get into politics too much but perhaps there’s a link to “global” operations to save the planet from doom, causing more mess than imagined?
1. “We can’t have an intelligent conversation about Harvey without also discussing climate change.”
– Preemptively labeling any discussion not accepting straight away a core but rather complex premise, as being “unintelligent” is not, eh, very intelligent either!
3. “in much of the world families lose something far more precious: their babies”.
– Variation on the scream: “Think about the children!!”. Appear to emotion as some kind of argument?
4. “Climate change increases risks of war, instability, disease and hunger in vulnerable parts of the globe”
– In much of the world *any* sudden change in food prices, water level or weather pattern destabilizes because of — lets see: general mismanagement of land and means, misgovernment, overpopulation, destruction of natural protections, propping up wrong governments with foreign support, weapon flows and so on and so on. Lets look at the whole picture here!
5. “We keep building in vulnerable coastal areas and on flood plains, pretty much daring Mother Nature to whack us.”
So it’s not “climate change” then which puts these flood plain populations at risk but economical pressure? Make up your mind! What is the main cause, who is the enemy?
6. “Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet? ”
Because climate science ≢ astrophysics in any way or sense. It’s more like ecology, extremely multidisciplinary & model based. The solar system has its models and computer programs but includes way more solid observational confirmations as far as the basic mechanism goes. Big difference for anyone with some scientific understanding (≢ NYT).

Reply to  John Dowser
September 3, 2017 10:32 am

Climate change undoubtedly contributed to the intensity of the storm/rainfall during Harvey.
Houston has long been predicted as liable to suffer in extreme weather events due to warming.
You can’t discuss Harvey without acknowledging the climate elephant in the room

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 11:37 am

Griff writes,
“Climate change undoubtedly contributed to the intensity of the storm/rainfall during Harvey.”
Meanwhile explain how a mere Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979 dumping more rain in just 24 hours,more than Harvey did in any 24 hour period.
“Tropical Storm Claudette – 43″ of rain in Alvin in 24 hours”
That was in 1979..
Griff writes,
“Houston has long been predicted as liable to suffer in extreme weather events due to warming.”
Houston from day one has always suffered from flooding,it is IN the BAYOU region of the state.
Significant Houston Area Floods
Griff writes this absurd howler,
“You can’t discuss Harvey without acknowledging the climate elephant in the room”
It was a WEATHER event!
Your entire post have ZERO evidence presented in it, you are horrible at this.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 12:56 pm

Was the “elephant in the room” named Michael Mann? He was wrong on all counts.
Yes, the “headline” is unfortunate (Mann “et al” have always been careful to imply something without leaving a quote behind to confirm their implication.) but the rest of what Joe Bastadi said ripped Mann a new Ozone Hole.
When it comes to Real(everyday)Climate, Mann is clueless.

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 2:11 pm

As always, Griff assumes what can’t be proven.
Is there any evidence that the Gulf was warmer than normal this year?
The charts that I have seen show that it wasn’t.
BTW, how much extra energy is 0.001C supposed to add to hurricane?

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 3:04 pm

Harvey’s rainfall rate was between 3.75″ and 4″ per hour. This is not even close to a record. Just Googling “hurricane harvey rainfall rate per hour” showed that Hurricane Ike in 2008 was at 4″ per hour, and Tropical Storm Allison (no date given) varied between 4″ and 6″ per hour
what made Harvey extreme is that it stalled over Houston and dumped that rate for days. If it had moved off like most hurricanes, the flooding wouldn’t have been nearly as bad.

Reply to  John Dowser
September 3, 2017 2:10 pm

Invading Afghanistan and Iraq killed terrorists by the thousands. It also forced them to concentrate on those areas rather than the rest of the world.
The resumption of terrorism in the rest of the world didn’t occur until we bugged out of there.

September 3, 2017 4:01 am

There were 2 proposals in the NYT article:
1. embrace the Paris accord
2. introduce carbon tax .
No 2 has been discussed in the comments above , but surely it is the first proposal that is the more destructive because embracing the Paris accord.commits the US to sending 10s of billions of dollars to
sometimes unaccountable destinations, at a time when billions are required to heip the very people , American taxpayers , who are expected to provide these vast sums .
Surely Trump can help both his own standing and the well being of the Americans most vulnerable to extreme weather events by saying to the NYT that if climate change is indeed responsible for events such as happened at Texas then it is even more necessary not to embrace Paris , because by withdrawing from Paris he can ensure US money goes to the US residents who desperately need it.

September 3, 2017 4:19 am

… and the polls predicted the victory of Hillary Clinton, just as well as they predict Climate Change

September 3, 2017 4:31 am

“…and I was seared while reporting in Madagascar about children starving apparently as a consequence of climate change.”
Nicholas Kristof, Madagascar’s children are dying because of the corruption in the UN. They are not dying as a result of hunger but because of otherwise avoidable or curable diseases that are devastating the family and social structure. Malaria is the major killer and has ben so for millennia. There’s no climate change in that. However malaria can be eliminated by the use of DDT, a cheap and highly effective insecticide which the UN had banned on the false premise that birds were laying eggs with thinner shells.
Instead of providing these poor suffering people with DDT the UN are telling mothers to cover their children’s cots with mosquito nets when they don’t even have a cot.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Reply to  Pete
September 3, 2017 10:35 am

DDT is not banned for fighting malaria and DDT is used in some locations against malarial mosquitos.
and there is absolute evidence that birds were laying thinner eggs: DDT devastated the UK bird of prey population. That’s why DDT is banned from agricultural use -but not for fighting malaria

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 11:57 am

Griff, your DDT claims are so wrong,it is hilarious.
The egg shell thinning claims have since been shown to be misleading, since they were happening LONG before DDT was in use. Not only that many bird populations actually increased,some massively since the use of DDT.
It is BANNED totally in America and many parts of the world.
From your precious overrated Guardian is this article,
” Banned pesticide backed for malaria control
World Health Organisation urges DDT’s reintroduction
Environmentalists warn of long-term cancer concerns
DDT, a pesticide banned in the developed world, should be used to spray houses in all countries where people suffer from malaria, the World Health Organisation said yesterday, 30 years after it phased the practice out.
The new push to use DDT to kill the malaria-transmitting mosquito in Africa and other parts of the world with severe death tolls from the disease will dismay many environmentalists. They fear the polluting effects of the chemical will spread, although the WHO says spraying should be limited to the insides of houses and their roofs. Arata Kochi, the new head of the WHO’s malaria programme, has made no secret of his determination to bring back the chemical weapon that helped rid Europe and the former USSR of malaria decades ago. “We must take a position based on the science and the data,” he said in Washington.
“One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”
I hate Environmentalists who worry about a small cancer possibility, over saving MILLIONS of people lives from nearly certain death from Malaria.
Meanwhile here is a starting point to show that Carson was very wrong in a number of her claims:
The Truth About DDT and Silent Spring
How come you are so bad at this? you really 12 years old?

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 12:18 pm

By the way Griff, i read the book Silent Spring while I was Middle school in the early 1970’s,came away unimpressed,because so many of her claims were based on hearsay and anecdotes. There was very little real published science in it.
The Eggshell thinning was one of her big failures, since it was even THEN known to exist many years before DDT came along. Meanwhile a lot of published science research disproved her claims
From Junk Science:
100 Things You Should Know About DDT
by J. Gordon Edwards and Steven Milloy
July 26, 1999, JunkScience.com
“VI. EGG-SHELL THINNING. DDT was alleged to have thinned bird egg shells.
39. Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate. [Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 (“There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning.”)]
40. Experiments associating DDT with egg shell thinning involve doses much higher than would ever be encountered in the wild. [J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 (“acute” doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 (“In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. … no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with … DDT up to 100 ppm)]
41. Laboratory egg shell thinning required massive doses of DDE far in excess of anything expected in nature, and massive laboratory doses produce much less thinning than is seen in many of the thin-shelled eggs collected in the wild. [Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974)]
42. Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference. [Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatch ability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its
43. Egg shell thinning is not correlated with pesticide residues. [Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)]<
44. Among brown pelican egg shells examined there was no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness. [Switzer, B. 1972. Consolidated EPA hearings, Transcript pp. 8212-8336; and Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Why pelican eggshells are thin. Nature 239: 410-412]
45. Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use. [Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]
There were causes known that crack biologist Carson manage not to consider:
46. To the extent egg shell thinning occurred, many other substances and conditions could have been responsible.
47. Oil has been associated with egg shell thinning. [Anon. National Wildlife Federation, Conservation News, pp. 6-10, October 15 1979. (Embryonic mortality from oil on feathers of adults birds) ; Hartung, R. 1965. J Wildlife Management 29:872-874 (Oil on eggs reduces hatch ability by 68 percent); Libby, EE. 1978. Fish, wildlife and oil. Ecolibrium 2(4):7-10; King,
KA et al. 1979 Bull Environ Contam Tox 23:800-805 (Oil a probably cause of pelican mortality for six weeks after spill);Albers, PH. 1977. Fate and Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Marine Ecosystems, Pergamon Press, N.Y. (Chapters 15 & 16; Dieter, MP. 1977. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development Program Report, pp. 35-42 (5 microliters of oil on fertile egg kills 76 to 98 percent of embryos within; birds ingesting oil produce 70 percent to 100 percent less eggs than normal; offspring failed to develop normal flight feathers); Szaro, RC. 1977. Proc 42nd N Amer Wildlife Nat Resources Conference, pp. 375-376]
48. Lead has been associated with egg shell thinning. [Bellrose, RC. 1959. Ill Nat Hist Survey Bull 27:235-288 (Lead poisoning in wildlife)]
49. Mercury has been associated with egg shell thinning. [D’Itri, FM & PB Trost. 1970. International Conference on Mercury Contamination, Ann Arbor, September 30, 1070; Scott, JL et al. 1975. Effects of PCBs, DDT and mercury upon egg production, hatch ability and shell quality. Poultry Sci 54:3350-368; Stoewssand, GS et al.. 1971. Shell- thinning in quail fed mercuric
chloride. Science 173:1030-1031; Tucker, RK. 1971. Utah Science June 1971:47-49 (Effects of many chemicals on shell thickness).; Tucker, RK & HA Haegle. 1970. Bull Environ Contamin Toxicol 5:191-194]
50. Stress from noise, fear or excitement and disease are associated with egg shell thinning. [Scott, HM et al.. 1944. (Physiological stress thins shells) Poultry Science 23:446-453; Draper, MH & PE Lake. 1967. Effects of stress and defensive responses. In Environmental Control in Poultry Production, Oliver and Boyd, London; Reid, BL. 1971. (Effects of stress on laying birds) Farm Technology, Fall 1971; Sykes, AH. 1955 (Adrenaline excess inhibits shell formation) Poultry Science 34: 622-628]
51. Older birds produce thinner shells. [Sunde, ML. 1971 (Older birds produce thinner shells) Farm Technology, Fall 1971]
52. Normal egg shells become 5 percent thinner as developing embryos withdraw calcium for bone development. [Romanoff, AL and AJ Romanoff. 1967. Biochemistry of the Avian Embryo, Wiley & Sons, N.Y.; Simkiss, K. 1967. (Shells thinned by embryo development within) In Calcium in Reproductive Physiology, Reinhold, NY, pp 198-213]
53. Larger birds tend to produce thicker-shelled eggs. [Asmundson, VS et al. 1943. (Relations between the parts of birds’ eggs) Auk 60:34-44]
54. Dehydration is associated with thinner egg shells. [Tucker, RK and HA Haegle. 1970. (30 percent thinner shells formed after quail were kept from water for 36 hours) Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 5(3): 191-194]
55. Temperature extremes are associated with thinner egg shells. [Romanoff, AL and AJ Romanoff, 1949. The Avian Egg, Wiley & Sons]
56. Decreased illumination is associated with thinner egg shells. [Peakall, DB. 1970. (Shells not thinned even after illumination was abruptly reduced from 16 hours daily to 8 hours daily and high DDT dosage begun simultaneously) Science 168:592-594; Day, EJ. 1971. (Importance of even illumination on laying birds) Farm Technology, Fall 1971;Houser, EJ. 1962. Pacific
Poultryman, August 1962; Morris, TR et al. 1964. (The most critical area of light duration is that between 16 hours and 8 hours daily) British Poultry Science 5: 133-147; Ward, P. 1972 (Physiological importance of photo period in bird experiments) Ibis 114: 275]
57. Human and predator intrusion is associated with thinner egg shells. [Beatty, RG. 1973. The DDT Myth, John Day Co., N.Y. 201 pages; Anon. 1971. Hawk Chalk 10(3):47-57; Cade, TJ. 1960. Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon populations in Alaska. Univ Calif Publ Zool 63(3): 151-290]
58. Simple restraint interferes with the transport of calcium throughout the body of birds, preventing adequate calcium from reaching the shell gland and forming
good shells. [Sykes, AH. 1955. Poultry Science 34:622-628]
59. Uncovering eggs after parent birds are removed or frightened off exposes eggs to potentially fatal chilling, especially in northern or high altitude locations. [Cade, TJ. 1960. Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon populations in Alaska. Uni Calif Publ Zool 63(3):151-290]
60. Phosphorus deficiency is associated with thinner shells. [Crowley, TA et al. 1963. Poultry Science 54: 350-368]
61. Calcium deficiency is associated with thinner shells.[Greely, F.. 196 (Effects of calcium deficiency) J Wildlife Management 70:149-153; Romanoff, AL and AJ Romanoff. 1949. The Avian Egg, Wiley & Sons; Scott, ML. 1975. Poultry Science 54:350-368; Taylor, TG. 1970. How and eggshell is formed. Scientific American 222:89-95; Tucker, RK and HA Tucker. 1970. Bull Environ Contamin Toxicol 5(3):1191-194]"
Her bird mortality rates claims wasn't even shown to be connected to DDT use at all,she failed to demonstrate a clear connection between the two. The very birds she claims were being killed off actually INCREASED in population,some tremendously:
"It can be seen that far from declining, the number of birds encountered by each observer nearly quadrupled over the period in question. In the case of the robin, singled out by Carson as “the tragic symbol of the fate of the birds,”[40] the population count increased twelvefold."
"Many other studies show the same pattern of sharp increase of some bird populations during the DDT years. For example, a bird sanctuary that has been counting birds over Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania since the 1930s reported an increase in sightings of ospreys from less than 200 in 1945 to over 600 by 1970, and an increase in sightings of migrating raptors from 9,291 in 1946 to 29,765 in 1968.[41] The herring gull population on Tern Island, Massachusetts grew from 2,000 pairs in 1940 to 35,000 pairs in 1970 (at which point the Audubon Society displayed its concern for the birds’ wellbeing by poisoning 30,000 of them, a procedure it said was “kind of like weeding a garden”).[42]"
Rachel Carson is a poor scientist.
You are a lousy researcher.
I knew this stuff over 20 years ago!

Tom in Flolrida
Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 5:07 pm

Stop wasting your time and effort on Griff. Griff is a koolaidaholic, never stops swallowing it.

Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 5:43 pm

Tommy, good posts.
But that’s not the first time Griff has been corrected on DDT, albeit perhaps not so comprehensively.
But they won’t make any difference, give him a month or two, he’ll be posting the same lies from the same playbook, he’s got his script from whoever pays him, that’s what he posts from.
Researching topics for himself isn’t part of his modus operandum.

September 3, 2017 5:24 am

Is “everybody” except me unable to look at the big picture and the difference between what you can prove and what you can make up and never prove ( because the spec is too loose) – religion for profit, where those who deny an unprovable belief with hard science, and the actual science denying measures enacted for profit in its name, are labelled heretical “science deniers”?
There is no hard evidence that CO2 is the cause of any real climate change. JUst a controlled and over simplified experiment in a jar, unsupported and effectively unprovable in the atmosphere. Science fact, I suggest. Lots of paid statistical so called science showing correlkation between temperature and CO2. So what? Oceans emit CO2 as they warm, a natural effect. No cause and effect that the reverse happens can be shown by staistical models.
There is better evidence that plants are MORE than capable of keepig CO2 at an optimum level for life by dynamic response, in relative absorption and abundance, as they have for 1 Billion years.
There is clear evidence from ice cores that CO2 is a consequence of ocean temperature change, not a cause, No physical experiments have replicated the actusl hypothetical conditions in the Troposhere/Stratosphere, or how the low heat contect atmosphere then heats the 1,000 times more heat capacity oceans that actually control the climate – not the low heat capacity, short term, noisy weather producing atmosphere.
Taxing something you pay people to prove is a problem with the pseudo science of partial statistical models with agendas to support a religious belief, w/o physical deterministic physics to support it, is simply religion paying scholars to produce texts on whatever delusional belief you want the hard of thought masses to believe.
Climate science as practised is no better than a cargo cult pseudo science. With hindsight, Feynman would have done well to explain that statistical models, and the pseudo sciences that use them, like sociology and economics that prove correlation but not causation, are good representatives of his elegantly defined cargo cult science, that “don’t prove any laws”. Or, “If you build it, they won’t come” (of the airfild) – probably.
Is it not time for honest scientists to point out this emperor has no clothes, and is basically propaganda used to support a massive fraud on the public with wholly regressive measures that mostly make human CO2 emissions worse, won’t chnge the climate at all, and waste money o pointless religious sacrifices we could better use to avoid the real effects of climate change better. e.g. stop building on flood plains, Stop subsidise ing renewable enrgy that can’t deliver in hard science fact and build more gas and nuclear generation to replace coal. Also more sustainable, lower use of land and material resources, less harmful t the enviroment, safer, and cheapest of all, etc. But that’s only the science facts of energy, not the religious beliefs of the NYT and its technically illiterate journalists and congregation/readership. No facts or d physical science are harmed in NYT articles like this. Probably.

September 3, 2017 5:32 am

Dumbest sentence ever written:

We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?

Regarding taxes, the Federal government already collects nearly $300 billion per year in tax revenue from Texans.
Rank/ State/ Gross collections (in thousands)/
Revenue per capita (est.)/ Ratio to GSP
1/ California/ $405,851,295/ $10,408/ 16.6%
2/ Texas/ $279,904,425/ $10,204/ 17.1%

So far, President Trump has requested about $15 billion. They can easily find $15 billion in a $2 trillion “budget.” They can start by zeroing out worthless crap like this:comment image
Even if the cost of Harvey rivaled Katrina ~$120 billion), that would only amount to about 5 months worth of what Texans *alreadly* send to Mordor-on-the-Potomac.

Bruce Cobb
September 3, 2017 5:57 am

“We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change” is a supreme example of circular reasoning. “We don’t deny x so why deny y” could be used for anything.
In fact, I’ll use it: we don’t deny gravity so why deny space aliens? Wow! I like it!

September 3, 2017 7:04 am

What would Kristoff’s story have been about these floods?
“Extreme Weather Extreme Claims”
“1889 Johnstown, Pennsylvania was destroyed by a massive flood. The South Fork Dam across a tributary of the Little Conemaugh River collapsed under pressure from the rain-swollen Lake Conemaugh. Water slammed into Johnstown, Pa., 55 miles southeast of Pittsburgh and killed 2,209 people in a flood and related fire.
The Great Dayton Flood of 1913 flooded Dayton, Ohio, and the surrounding area with water from the Great Miami River, causing the greatest natural disaster in Ohio history. Within three days, 8-11 inches of rain fell throughout the Great Miami River watershed on frozen ground, resulting in more than 90% runoff that caused the river and its tributaries to overflow. The existing series of levees failed, and downtown Dayton experienced flooding up to 20 feet (6.1 m) deep.
The Mississippi Flood of 1927 – There was a major flood along the Mississippi that killed 247 people and displaced thousands. The levee system broke in 145 places and caused 27,000 square miles of flooding in Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee.
The Ohio River flood of 1937 occurred in late January and February 1937, causing damage along the Ohio River and several smaller tributaries from Pittsburgh, Illinois to Cairo, Illinois. This flood left close to 1 million people homeless, 385 dead, and $50,000,000 worth of damage.”

James Schrumpf
September 3, 2017 7:32 am

What if everyone had driven to see the eclipse, and there hadn’t been one? That’s where climate science is right now.

Pamela Gray
September 3, 2017 7:49 am

Yessiree. Benevolent Taxation for the purpose of redistribution. The new form of World Communisim. Refute it at every turn folks. A single World Collective Government (which will form if World Redistribution of Income happens) will only lead to clan wars the likes we have never seen. Why? Because the human species is built to own what is theirs of their own sweat and blood and is genetically built to kill whoever tries to take it from them. In a nutshell, leave the animal kingdom alone to work it out for themselves, else it is necessary to cage it if the natural order is not to the liking of addled minded folks. World Distribution of Income is exactly that, a cage for each of us.

September 3, 2017 7:51 am

Confusing orbital mechanics with climate predictions is merely expressing one’s profound ignorance of both.

CD in Wisconsin
September 3, 2017 7:52 am

“…….We keep building in vulnerable coastal areas and on flood plains, pretty much daring Mother Nature to whack us…….”.
Yup, and she does. This is the one statement (and the only one) that I agree with.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
September 3, 2017 8:07 am

If the rich, private and coorporate, have enough money to pay to build on sand, let them also carry the personal insurance, all of it, to keep themselves from losing the investment. Stupid is as stupid does and in the US, those who are stupid have the right to make dumb decisions in their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. But they have NO right to force the rest of us to pay for the consequences. Which is exactly what we all do right now through our own insurance and FEMA. Irritates me.

Michael 2
September 3, 2017 8:18 am

“Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?”
This is your brain on science.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Michael 2
September 3, 2017 8:43 am

This is your science in the hands of liberals.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Michael 2
September 3, 2017 9:14 am

“Cooking the planet”? I THOUGHT I smelled something burning!
Hey, there’s a movie idea: “Honey, I cooked the planet!”

Gunga Din
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 3, 2017 1:11 pm

Actually what you smelled was me letting the planet cook my burgers.
(I’m not a good cook.)

September 3, 2017 9:15 am

This piece by Kristoff just leaves one breathless at the stellar quality of the new generation’s journalists. (/sarc)
Babies are dying 😪 and “apparently” it’s all down to climate change.”

Reply to  ptolemy2
September 3, 2017 9:44 am

He never ceases to demonstrate he’s dumb as a post. That the NYT keeps him on is a rather savage indictment of its editorial staff.

September 3, 2017 9:32 am

“Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet? ”
The answer should be self evident; when hurricanes (like Harvey) can be predicted by “Climate Scientists” more than 6 months in advance (like Lunar eclipses), they’ll get a bit more respect. When they can do it 10 years in advance, they’ll get more respect. When they start doing it 100 years in advance, I imagine you’ll be using them as examples instead of whining about the fact they just get laughed at these days.

Reply to  Bartleby
September 3, 2017 9:45 am

Mods: Thanks for cleaning that up. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Reply to  Bartleby
September 3, 2017 9:54 am

For the curious, I made several egregious formatting errors in my haste and general outrage with what the NYT chose (and I do mean “chose”) to publish. Our gracious moderator very successfully stuck to the original intent of the comment without editorial bias of any kind.

September 3, 2017 9:35 am

My earlier comment should be used as an example of why a person should never type angry.

September 3, 2017 12:12 pm

Dear Mr Worrall
Are we to infer from Mr Kristof’s article that there were no hurricanes before the industrial revolution?
On the other hand, computer aided global warming can only come after the invention of computers, which requires an industrial revolution.
Therefore the industrial revolution caused CAGW.

Gunga Din
Reply to  DP
September 3, 2017 1:29 pm

Hmmm….I think (could be wrong) that the thermometers was invented before the industrial revolution.
Without mass producing thermometers via the industrial revolution, just how do we know what the temperature of the globe was way back then? How widely distributed and used were they? How often were the readings recorded?
Lots and lots we don’t know about the past.
Lot’s we can learn about different aspects of the past.
“Global temperatures”? No.
Stop using taxpayer dollars to pay the trearing readers.

Gunga Din
September 3, 2017 1:32 pm

“Lot’s we can learn about different aspects of the past.”
Should ahve been:
“Lot’s we can learn about different aspects of the past from tree rings.

September 3, 2017 1:34 pm

In the opinion of those on the left, money becomes imbued with magical powers when it’s taken by government.
It becomes capable of breaking the laws of physics and economics.

September 3, 2017 3:01 pm

“Imagine that after the 9/11 attacks, the conversation had been limited to the tragedy in Lower Manhattan, the heroism of rescuers and the high heels of the visiting first lady — without addressing the risks of future terrorism.”
Just to show how out of touch the NYT writer is with reality, he only references the 911 attacks on Manhattan ignoring the fact that the plane attacks included the Pentagon and a plane crash in Pa because of some brave passengers preventing another attack in Washington.
Is New York the only important place where Americans died? Sad writer for the NYT ignores others? One would think the editor would have picked up that egregious omission.
This gives a picture of the typical self centered liberal elites only thinking selfishly about themselves, their agenda, and their neighborhoods.
Furthermore the NYT policy regarding emigration and allowing migrants in un-vetted is deplorable with reckless abandon just to get more Democrat votes and places the country in greater risk for another 911 event. What is the nonsense about claiming ” addressing the risks of future terrorism” when the NYT is against any measure to lower the risk.
I have seen nothing but resistance from the NYT being against every measure to make us safer.

Bill Illis
September 3, 2017 4:57 pm

Meanwhile, the GFS forecast for Hurricane Irma takes out all of the Leeward Islands and the Bahamas as a Cat5 and then hits North Carolina, again as a Cat5 so next week-end to Tuesday will be CAGW 24/7.

September 3, 2017 6:55 pm

What I think everyone is missing here is that the entire premise of his article is false from the get go. If the theory of terrorism was not fully proven, if there were logical explanations for events other than “terrorism” and specifically for the brand of terrorism that was responsible for 9/11, then we might have something similar to what is happening between the skeptics and the statists. For example, if there was good proof that the disaster of 9/11 could have been caused by the refraction of the sun’s rays, then the author’s argument would be valid and logical. But 97% of scientists agree that islamist terrorists were responsible for 9/11. (sarcasm) No one really disagrees with that. That data has been proven over and over again, with similar events occurring over and over since that time.
But the theory of man-made catastrophic climate change is debatable, has not been proven over and over again, there are other logical theories for the changing climate, and only very few people really believe in man-made catastrophic climate change. Let alone, that taxing the victims of climate, for using the energy resources necessary to counter the changing climate, will in fact stop the climate from changing.

stan stendera
September 4, 2017 2:47 pm

Nicolas Kristof is a cretin.

Matt G
September 4, 2017 5:59 pm

“We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?”
This rubbish from the media is only increasing scepticism. Does the author (NK) really think hurricanes didn’t exist before climate change? Learn something about global warming nonsense before making ridiculous claims. Only shows how ignorant the author is and beyond their scientific understanding.
1) The presence of hurricanes or any one weather related event say nothing about global warming / climate change or how much humans may have changed it in any way.
2) Nobody can deny something that is completely misunderstood by the questioner.
3) Nobody denies climate change, so call the term something else to avoid this continued misunderstanding. Only used in media/alarmists to avoid confrontation/debate and immediately shows the person up for what they are, IGNORANT CHARLATAN.
4) Only alarmists have tried to deny climate change by altering history to show little or no change.
5) Sceptics mainly deny climate change as regards to how much human influence.
6) Sceptics don’t deny weather so why are you?
7) Not one scientist/person on the planet can show the difference between a natural historical hurricane or hurricane with some extra CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.
“Straw man” argument if there was ever one.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights