PDA

View Full Version : Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind (Katrina)


KingPriest2
08-31-2005, 09:16 AM
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind” Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Mon Aug 29, 7:05 PM ET



As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2.

ADVERTISEMENT

In March of 2001, just two days after EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman’s strong statement affirming Bush’s CO2 promise former RNC Chief Barbour responded with an urgent memo to the White House.

Barbour, who had served as RNC Chair and Bush campaign strategist, was now representing the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry who had enlisted him to map a Bush energy policy that would be friendly to their interests. His credentials ensured the new administration’s attention.

The document, titled “Bush-Cheney Energy Policy & CO2,” was addressed to Vice President Cheney, whose energy task force was then gearing up, and to several high-ranking officials with strong connections to energy and automotive concerns keenly interested in the carbon dioxide issue, including Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, White House chief of staff Andy Card and legislative liaison Nick Calio. Barbour pointedly omitted the names of Whitman and Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, both of whom were on record supporting CO2 caps. Barbour’s memo chided these administration insiders for trying to address global warming which Barbour dismissed as a radical fringe issue.

“A moment of truth is arriving,” Barbour wrote, “in the form of a decision whether this Administration’s policy will be to regulate and/or tax CO2 as a pollutant. The question is whether environmental policy still prevails over energy policy with Bush-Cheney, as it did with Clinton-Gore.” He derided the idea of regulating CO2 as “eco-extremism,” and chided them for allowing environmental concerns to “trump good energy policy, which the country has lacked for eight years.”

The memo had impact. “It was terse and highly effective, written for people without much time by a person who controls the purse strings for the Republican Party,” said John Walke, a high-ranking air quality official in the Clinton administration.

On March 13, Bush reversed his previous position, announcing he would not back a CO2 restriction using the language and rationale provided by Barbour. Echoing Barbour’s memo, Bush said he opposed mandatory CO2 caps, due to “the incomplete state of scientific knowledge” about global climate change.

Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.

In 1998, Republican icon Pat Robertson warned that hurricanes were likely to hit communities that offended God. Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.

Brock
08-31-2005, 09:19 AM
Sirhan Sirhan missed one.

KingPriest2
08-31-2005, 09:21 AM
This is nature IT is a cycle now we have guys like this blaming people for freaking hurricanes.

jAZ
08-31-2005, 09:28 AM
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2005/08/01/57888.htm

MIT Hurricane Study: Global Warming 'Pumping Up' Destructive Power
August 1, 2005

Global warming is pumping up the destructive power of hurricanes and typhoons, a new study published by Kerry Emanuel, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology hurricane specialist suggests.

Emanuel's analysis of data on storm winds and duration, according to New Scientist, shows that potential wind-caused damage has roughly doubled over the past 30 years. His research shows that over the same period, tropical sea-surface temperatures have increased only by half a degree.

An analysis of storm winds and duration shows that potential wind-caused damage has roughly doubled over the past 30 years, according to Emanuel, although tropical sea-surface temperatures have increased by only half a degree over that time.

The frequency of hurricanes seems unaffected by global warming. Regional totals vary periodically, but the number of tropical cyclones around the world averages a steady 90 per year. But Emanuel's study is the second in weeks to link storm intensity with climate.

Feeding peak sustained-wind data into his model, Emanuel calculated the total potential destructive power over the life of all storms each year since about 1950 in the world's two best-monitored areas - the North Atlantic and the north-west Pacific. He found a striking correlation between their destructive potential and sea-surface temperatures.

Hurricanes are powered by the temperature difference between the top of the sea and the air above the storm, so warmer water was expected to pump the storms harder. But previous computer models had predicted that the half-degree increase in sea-surface temperatures from global warming over the past 30 years should have increased wind speed by only about 3 percent, corresponding to a 10 percent increase in Emanuel's estimate of destructive power.

Instead, Emanuel found that the destructive power of North Atlantic storms more than doubled over the past 30 years. For north-west Pacific storms, the increase was about 75 percent. He attributes the sharp jump to increases in storm duration as well as much larger than expected increases in wind power.

The results surprised Chris Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division in Miami, US. "This is the first article that has a smoking gun between global warming and hurricane activity," he told New Scientist.

Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says Emanuel's results parallel his study of storm kinetic energy.

Yet some big questions remain. Storm winds are virtually impossible to measure directly, and techniques for estimating them indirectly have changed over the years. To adjust for those changes, Emanuel reduced wind estimates in the 1950s and 1960s.

But Landsea says the unadjusted figures show no overall trend, raising doubts over whether Emanuel's model is making the right corrections. Although winds from that period looked too low in the past, Landsea says that wind estimates may actually have been too low in the 1970s through to the early 1990s.

Neither study considered changes in rainfall, which causes flooding that has been responsible for many deaths and damage in recent storms.

jAZ
08-31-2005, 09:35 AM
This is nature IT is a cycle now we have guys like this blaming people for freaking hurricanes.
There's a lot of "if" steps between the actions of people and the outcomes of hurricanes. That said, it's as foolish for those who dismiss the possiblity of a cause-effect between human actions and weather... as it is foolish for those who assert it as fact.

Uatu
08-31-2005, 09:36 AM
OMG bush caused teh hurrican!!!1

vailpass
08-31-2005, 11:05 AM
Before the internet I never had occasion to witness real, live conspiracy theorists. Actual tinfoil nut jobs. You guys are great entertainment, keep up the good work.
LMMFAO!!!!

KCTitus
08-31-2005, 11:18 AM
That said, it's as foolish for those who dismiss the possiblity of a cause-effect between human actions and weather... as it is foolish for those who assert it as fact.

No, it's not...a foolish assertion is just that foolish. Republicans or whoever did not create this hurricane. Hurricanes were hitting the united states long before we were burning gasoline or using freon.

Bootlegged
08-31-2005, 11:20 AM
that didn't take long. I expected the "blame Bush" crowd would've been out at first raindrop.

Don't you know...Bush causes all of the evil in the world. Power outages and hurricanes are just something he tinkers with on the side.

Brock
08-31-2005, 11:35 AM
No, it's not...a foolish assertion is just that foolish. Republicans or whoever did not create this hurricane. Hurricanes were hitting the united states long before we were burning gasoline or using freon.

There was a hurricane in 1905 that hit Galveston and killed 8,000 people. Must have been all those wood burning stoves that caused it. I also have a feeling that Teddy Roosevelt's naked aggression against other countries may have had something to do with it.

Duck Dog
08-31-2005, 11:36 AM
I've heard of the 'tin foil hat crowd', the 'black helicopter crowd', 'the conspiracy theory crowd'.......but this is reaching new levels and I'm not sure how to classify the lunacy.

Uatu
08-31-2005, 11:51 AM
It isn't just here, they put billboards up with Bush's picture next to a hurricane in Florida last year.

Who can find a pic of that one..?

go bowe
08-31-2005, 12:21 PM
OMG bush caused teh hurrican!!!1bush is da debil... :fire:

go bowe
08-31-2005, 12:26 PM
No, it's not...a foolish assertion is just that foolish. Republicans or whoever did not create this hurricane. Hurricanes were hitting the united states long before we were burning gasoline or using freon.of course hurricanes have always existed...

but the data reported in he article apparently suggests that while there is no significant increase in frequency of hurricanes, they do seem to be getter stronger over the past few decades...

that would be the asserted link between co2 emissions/global warming and the apparent increased intensity of hurricanes...

Chief Henry
08-31-2005, 04:21 PM
[QUOTE Robert F. Kennedy QUOTE]

ans his uncle Teddy (hic-up) Kennedy are a HUGE embarrisement
to the Kennedy family. John must be :rolleyes: right about now.

Chief Henry
08-31-2005, 04:21 PM
[QUOTE Robert F. Kennedy QUOTE]

and his uncle Teddy (hic-up) Kennedy are a HUGE embarrisement
to the Kennedy family. John must be :rolleyes: right about now.

jettio
08-31-2005, 05:46 PM
There is no doubt that several years have been lost to addressing climate change because Conservatives have exaggerated the level of debate within the science.

It does seem that weather is getting wilder, if the future bears out the predictions of those who advocated addressing climate change sooner, then the people that opposed it should bear some responsibility for their bad decisions.

Brock
08-31-2005, 05:55 PM
There is no doubt that several years have been lost to addressing climate change because Conservatives have exaggerated the level of debate within the science.

It does seem that weather is getting wilder, if the future bears out the predictions of those who advocated addressing climate change sooner, then the people that opposed it should bear some responsibility for their bad decisions.

Why not blame Bush for earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes while you're at it?

jettio
08-31-2005, 06:13 PM
Why not blame Bush for earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes while you're at it?

That is an entirely different area of geology, and as far as I know, there has not been a large consensus in the scientific community believing that human activity is impacting it with potential consequences, while at the same time, a bunch of ideological morons with no scientific background advocate for saying "f*ck it, I can't read a science book so I will just side up with the companies that are paying me off."

That is a distinction with a difference that even you could detect.

CHIEF4EVER
08-31-2005, 06:14 PM
There is no doubt that several years have been lost to addressing climate change because Conservatives have exaggerated the level of debate within the science.

It does seem that weather is getting wilder, if the future bears out the predictions of those who advocated addressing climate change sooner, then the people that opposed it should bear some responsibility for their bad decisions.

Wow. Did you make up a post that stupid all by yourself or did you use Al Franken's crib notes? ROFL

jettio
08-31-2005, 06:18 PM
Wow. Did you make up a post that stupid all by yourself or did you use Al Franken's crib notes? ROFL

All by myself, and you would have to have an extremely low threshold for ROFL to ROFL at what I posted. I would guess that you are laughing at your own imagination, one apparently so vivid that you think you are a brilliant independent thinker compared to me.

CHIEF4EVER
08-31-2005, 06:23 PM
All by myself, and you would have to have an extremely low threshold for ROFL to ROFL at what I posted. I would guess that you are laughing at your own imagination, one apparently so vivid that you think you are a brilliant independent thinker compared to me.

Actually, I am laughing at your hysterically funny radical leftist hatemongering and your penchant for turning any issue, no matter how trivial, into some type of covservative mistake or conspiracy. It is so loony that it becomes hilarious. Hence the reference to Al Franken's crib notes....you 2 guys are peas in a pod bucko. ROFL

jettio
08-31-2005, 06:53 PM
Actually, I am laughing at your hysterically funny radical leftist hatemongering and your penchant for turning any issue, no matter how trivial, into some type of covservative mistake or conspiracy. It is so loony that it becomes hilarious. Hence the reference to Al Franken's crib notes....you 2 guys are peas in a pod bucko. ROFL


So let's hear what you believe about the history of discussions of climate change and the science and politics about the topic?

The literate people on chiefsplanet would recognize my first post in this thread as one that is a lot more sober than my usual posts.

Somehow, your brilliant mind figured that you had read something inflammatory.

How about I repeat it for you.

"There is no doubt that several years have been lost to addressing climate change because Conservatives have exaggerated the level of debate within the science.

Could you do me and everybody else around here a favor and let us know if you are actually now saying that the post above is not true. Are you really capable of now saying that you have no memory of conservative politicoes claiming that there was a vigorous debate within the scientific community about whether or not human activity could impact the global climate?

How about sentence two?

"It does seem that weather is getting wilder, if the future bears out the predictions of those who advocated addressing climate change sooner, then the people that opposed it should bear some responsibility for their bad decisions."

What is your problem with that statement?

Brock
08-31-2005, 07:30 PM
That is an entirely different area of geology, and as far as I know, there has not been a large consensus in the scientific community believing that human activity is impacting it with potential consequences, while at the same time, a bunch of ideological morons with no scientific background advocate for saying "f*ck it, I can't read a science book so I will just side up with the companies that are paying me off."

That is a distinction with a difference that even you could detect.


There is a huge chasm between global warming theories and fact. The fact that you swallow this garbage is no surprise to me, however.

Go play with your "submarine", the USS Bzzzzz in the tub, ditz.

DanT
08-31-2005, 08:05 PM
There is a huge chasm between global warming theories and fact. The fact that you swallow this garbage is no surprise to me, however.

Go play with your "submarine", the USS Bzzzzz in the tub, ditz.

There is a huge chasm between global warming theories and fact. The fact that you swallow this garbage is no surprise to me, however.

Go play with your "submarine", the USS Bzzzzz in the tub, ditz.

As was stated by jettio, there is "a large consensus in the scientific community believing that human activity is impacting [climate change] with potential consequences". Even the White House is part of that consensus:


The President said that we are taking a better approach. We know that the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem. Though there have been past disagreements about the best way to address this issue, we are acting to help developing countries adopt new energy sources.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050630-16.html



Doshi, from Chicago writes:
Where do we stand in comparison to other countries on our efforts for reducing greenhouse gasesair pollution? Also, does the Whitehouse believe that there really is a greenhouse effect or that the climate change that we are feeling is just a product of the Earth's history in that these events cycle through every so many thousands of years?

Jeff Holmstead
At the practical level, there's a substantial amount of consensus around the world regarding climate change. U.S. measures are on par with and in some important instances go beyond what other countries are doing to advance the science, to develop and deploy new technologies for the long-term, and to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the near-term. Again, I would encourage everyone to review the following fact sheet on the President's climate change initiatives.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20030708.html

mlyonsd
08-31-2005, 08:05 PM
The impotant thing we're forgetting is how we went from the ice age to what we have now.

Talk about global warming.

jettio
08-31-2005, 08:15 PM
There is a huge chasm between global warming theories and fact. The fact that you swallow this garbage is no surprise to me, however.

Go play with your "submarine", the USS Bzzzzz in the tub, ditz.

I don't pretend to know what I have not studied, but there is no doubt that conservatives have exaggerated the level of controversy over whether there is an increase in global temperature only because they have no respect for science and too much respect for the charlatans that pay them to do their bidding.

It does seem plausible that the obvious increase in hurricane activity could be related to that.

When are you gonna sign up and fight in the war that B*sh tricked your azz into advocating. Recruiting standards ought to be lowered soon enough that even you can get an enlistment bonus even though you like to model lingerie.

DanT
08-31-2005, 08:27 PM
...

On March 13, Bush reversed his previous position, announcing he would not back a CO2 restriction using the language and rationale provided by Barbour. Echoing Barbour’s memo, Bush said he opposed mandatory CO2 caps, due to “the incomplete state of scientific knowledge” about global climate change.

...


Here's the text of the letter from President Bush that Mr. Kennedy quoted. It looks to me that Mr. Kennedy has taken President Bush's statement out of context and used it unfairly and misleadingly:


Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts


Thank you for your letter of March 6, 2001, asking for the Administration's views on global climate change, in particular the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. My Administration takes the issue of global climate change very seriously.

As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.

As you also know, I support a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy that takes into account the importance of improving air quality. Consistent with this balanced approach, I intend to work with the Congress on a multipollutant strategy to require power plants to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Any such strategy would include phasing in reductions over a reasonable period of time, providing regulatory certainty, and offering market-based incentives to help industry meet the targets. I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act.

A recently released Department of Energy Report, "Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Multiple Emissions from Power Plants," concluded that including caps on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a multiple emissions strategy would lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity prices compared to scenarios in which only sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides were reduced.

This is important new information that warrants a reevaluation, especially at a time of rising energy prices and a serious energy shortage. Coal generates more than half of America's electricity supply. At a time when California has already experienced energy shortages, and other Western states are worried about price and availability of energy this summer, we must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers. This is especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide.

Consistent with these concerns, we will continue to fully examine global climate change issues -- including the science, technologies, market-based systems, and innovative options for addressing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I am very optimistic that, with the proper focus and working with our friends and allies, we will be able to develop technologies, market incentives, and other creative ways to address global climate change.

I look forward to working with you and others to address global climate change issues in the context of a national energy policy that protects our environment, consumers, and economy.

Sincerely,


GEORGE W. BUSH


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html