Asshole Update
10 December 2006 by Bob
Not an act of God’s wrath but of man’s greed
Another devastating supertyphoon has roared through the central Philippines leaving an estimated thousand people dead, many of them buried in gigantic mudslides like what we saw here in the Philippines only a year ago. There is perhaps nothing more terrifying than being buried alive and waiting to die. The typhoons are growing in intensity year by year as a result of climate change and are destroying the infrastructure, the crops and the peoples’ lives month by month. During my 35 years in the Philippines, I cannot recall such a typhoon at this time of year. This was heightened by the recent eruption of the Mayon Volcano that left tons of sand and ash on its slopes that turned to a slimy sludge that surged down the mountain side engulfing villages, homes and people in minutes. In other places, one placid hillside began to move so great was the deluge of rain that emptied from the sky it undermined the treeless but grassy covered slopes. Rivers and swamps had been dredged for industrial use disrupting the mangroves and the natural barriers allowing great unstoppable floods to rush unimpeded through the coastal towns and swamp the villages carrying away dozens of flimsy disintegrating homes on a powerful wave of death and destruction. The suffering, devastation and destruction caused the loss of 66,500 homes, dozens of bridges, power lines and roads were ripped up and cast aside like straw. The bodies are buried so deep it is impossible to dig them out. Many will remain beneath the hundreds of tons of debris and dirt.
And then you wait for it…
Is this another act of punishment of an angry God for the sins of the world as some religious extremists would say or the result of a greedy, irresponsible generation of fossil fuel junkies and profit gouging addicts causing climate change? Is not the greatest sin against the environment to be laid at the door of us who pollute, waste and abuse the environment and never plant a flower, a bush or a tree? Or the sins against the rain forest to be laid at the door of teak loving tycoons that own the chain saws and lumber mills, the wood paneled palaces, fitted with lavish mahogany furniture and teak floors.
10 December 2006, on 1:14 am
It is easier for most humans to blame an angry god and/or to deny that we are making a mess of things than to accept responsibility for things we cause.
10 December 2006, on 1:24 am
It is easier for most humans to blame an angry god and/or to deny that we are making a mess of things than to accept responsibility for things we cause.
Well, that might be true — but the point is also not to completely “blame humans” if God existed, right? I mean, even if my kid does something stupid, I don’t allow him to kill himself (or others) just because of his ignorance…
10 December 2006, on 1:40 am
but the point is also not to completely “blame humans” if God existed, right? I mean, even if my kid does something stupid, I don’t allow him to kill himself (or others) just because of his ignorance…
Yes, that is very true.
10 December 2006, on 6:19 am
Of course it was an act of punishment by an angry and vengeful god, what else could it be?
What d’you mean, you want evidence?
OK, here it is:-
On another site I, and others, were told categorically that the Asian tusnami which killed hundreds of thousands had been sent by the xtian god to teach all those heathens a lesson for worshipping false gods! And theconclusive proof offered for this atrocity was (a) the fact that the event had happened, and (b) some obscure rantings from the xtian so-called ‘holy book’ whereby their god promised to do this to those who ‘dissed’ him.
Seems conclusive to me.
It is indisputable that the xtian god is a sociopathic mass-murderer and those that believe in it are delusional psychopaths.
And this ‘heaven’ they keep going on about is just a fancy word for a lunatic asylum!
10 December 2006, on 10:51 am
Guess they weren’t praying hard enough.
10 December 2006, on 11:49 am
Sorry folks but no one is to blame. Just because one guy in 35 years hasn’t remembered such a typhoon doesn’t mean it’s because of “climate change” or that there’s no precedent. 35 years is a vanishingly small time frame. In fact the oceans have been cooling over the last few years. The fact is the climate is constantly changing, and there’s no evidence that we have anything to do with it. And there’s DAMN sure no evidence that we can somehow control the global climate. Even the IPCC Third Assessment Report says there’s no causal link between global temperature and hurricanes/typhoons.
I know most of you probably won’t believe me, or think I’m a denier or something. But like we’re all skeptics about religion, I’m a skeptic about anything, until it’s proven. Such stories as this one only tell you one side of the issue. Don’t fall into the trap of just believing the hype. Just like the hype that banned DDT in most of the world for no reason other than emotion. Consequently millions have died of malaria, mostly in the so-called third-world countries. If you want an example of western greed, there’s one that’s absolutely verified. Bad science and emotional appeals caused the deaths of millions over the last 30+ years.
Sure, I’ll get blasted over this, but before you blast, do some research on both sides, not just from places that are convinced we’re causing the globe to warm.
10 December 2006, on 12:22 pm
Actually, Revenant, I’m sorry to say this but you are wrong!
Global warming is exclusively caused by all the hot-air spouted by politicians, religious leaders, and vested-interest groups, all of whom share a sole purpose in life - to mislead the hoi-polloi and control their actions whilst furthering their own agendas (which generally includes ‘lining their own pockets’ at someone else’s expense!)
LOL!
10 December 2006, on 12:23 pm
The Old Git wrote:
Now THERE’S something I can believe in! Amen brother!
10 December 2006, on 1:27 pm
Reventant, so you are saying pollution (air, land and sea) isn’t a problem? Barges upon barges of garbage, toxins and crap are dumped into the oceans daily, dumped into the landfills daily. Billions of cars pumping emissions into the air 24-7. So, you are saying that has no effect on the health of the planet?
Yes, climate changes are normal and humans cannot control nature. But we do pollute nature and in that can possibly bring about changes that would not have normally happened, could it not?
I grew up in Chicagoland near the steel mills. I can remember the soot and grime that made its way into our homes to cover the floors and furniture with a kind of grit that left the bottoms of our socks black no matter how often my mother mopped the floors. The atmosphere was a constant pinkish/orangish/grayish color. Trees around there looked limp and unhealthy.
Once the steel mills went out of business and they leveled many of them, and industry left the area, trees flourished, skies are blue and clear. It’s a whole different atmosphere and natural environment on Chicago’s southeast side now.
10 December 2006, on 2:17 pm
Stardust wrote:
Not saying that at all. I AM saying that CO2 is not a pollutant. The reason the trees flourished? CO2, among other reasons. I’m saying that limiting CO2 will do absolutely nothing to help the environment.
Along with billions of cars, there are billions upon billions of people and animals pumping the same emissions into the air simply by being alive. If you categorize CO2 as a pollutant, then it’s a short step to governing breathing. Wouldn’t THAT be wonderful.
I am NOT against the environment. I AM against unfounded alarmism, and hypocrisy. Such as railing against the infrastructure that allows us all to be convening here. None of this would have been possible without fossil fuels and heavy industry. Yet we still use it. If you feel that it’s all evil, then your only recourse is to stop using it. But I don’t see anyone doing that.
Evnironmentalism has become a religion, but no one practices what they preach.
10 December 2006, on 2:31 pm
Rev,
I am not saying you are against the environment and I understand what you are saying. You bring up some very good points to think about and discuss.
I don’t know much about environmental science and to be honest haven’t studied the issue in depth nor am I an active environmentalist. But I often feel guilty as I get into my conversion van and drive to work, etc. instead of buying something fuel efficient to get around in. I feel concerned about this issue at times, but then go on with my life as I have been. You are right . . . few people practice what they preach.
10 December 2006, on 3:00 pm
I think I’ll stick with the climate scientists.
“In total, at least four studies, two based entirely on analyses of observations, and the other two based on climate model simulations, independently come to the conclusion that warming tropical Atlantic and Pacific SSTs cannot be purely attributed to any natural oscillation. These studies do not conclusively show a hurricane/global warming link, let alone determine what it’s magnitude might be, but they do strengthen one pillar of that linkage.”
For the complete article go to:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/tropical-ssts-natural-variations-or-global-warming/
10 December 2006, on 3:13 pm
I agree, Larry, I’ll stick with the climate scientists as well.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001011that_didnt_take_lon.html
The fact is we don’t know enough to make ANY policy decisions. Climate models are woefully inaccurate for predicting anything. And none of the alarmist prognostications from 20 years ago have come true.
Fool me once…
10 December 2006, on 7:26 pm
Stardust said:
Why feel guilty?
I drive a van, which I converted into a motor-home some 13 years ago. It is not as fuel efficient as some vehicles, but I use it (a) as basic transport for my wife and myself, (b) as a camper-van which enables us to take off on holidays, (c) as a removal van to move our possessions around the country, and (d) to collect heavy and dirty loads from the builders’ merchant/DIY store/horticulturalists etc. However, if I didn’t have my converted van, I would need 4 separate vehicles to fulfil all these requirements, and they would have a collectively greater cost to the environment than my existing 1 vehicle - and I couldn’t afford them, anyway!
So, don’t beat yourself up, Stardust.
After all, that fucking idiot who is your President produces more hot-air and CO2 emissions than a large-sized city!
10 December 2006, on 8:54 pm
You want a nasty vehicle? My family drives a bus we bought a few years ago, for no good reason. We -could- drive the car, but we like the bus. Gets almost ten feet on forty litres of gas. I’m pretty sure we have taken out a large chunk of the ozone ourselves.
Honestly though, the problem is that “fuel efficent” cars are far too expensive, and for a family like mine, it’s just not worth it. After all, why spend $30K when you can buy a broken piece of crap from a junkyard and fix it up? If the car companies and the government really cared about the enviroment, they would price the cars at a rate that everyone, even rather poor people, can afford.
10 December 2006, on 9:13 pm
The Old Fit wrote:
Not really, unless they were all being driven at the same time. If you used them for their intended purpose then your vehicle use would be exactly the same as it is now.
10 December 2006, on 9:32 pm
I drive a van, which I converted into a motor-home some 13 years ago. It is not as fuel efficient as some vehicles, but I use it (a) as basic transport for my wife and myself, (b) as a camper-van which enables us to take off on holidays, (c) as a removal van to move our possessions around the country, and (d) to collect heavy and dirty loads from the builders’ merchant/DIY store/horticulturalists etc.
Old Git - We have had a van (on our third) since our kids were little. We could all 5 of us sleep in the thing at once until they got bigger. (My husband drives a fuel efficient car to his job because he has farther to go.)
We have saved a lot in motel bills on long trips. We have one of those wider sofa-sleepers in the back that is big enough for two and is quite comfy. Then the seats can all be taken out if you want to transport stuff. We have saved a lot by not having to rent a truck for things, and it can carry quite a lot. When we all go to my son’s wedding (it will be by her family out east) we will take with us my mother, father, sister, other son. And will have room for all of their crap. Saves airfare for all of us.
It’s six years old now and just passed the state emissions test, so though gas mileage isn’t too great (16 mpg) at least it runs “clean”.
The state emission tests here in Illinois are kind of a joke. If your car fails you can take it and try to have it fixed. If you cannot get it to pass after spending $400 just bring in receipts that show you spent that much on the vehicle and they will give you a waiver and you can keep driving it. I find that a big puzzling. I mean, isn’t the whole point to get the polluting cars off the road? Why make you spend that kind of money when they are only going to waive it anyway?
10 December 2006, on 9:41 pm
If the car companies and the government really cared about the enviroment, they would price the cars at a rate that everyone, even rather poor people, can afford.
Jaxx, that is an excellent point. My husband just had to buy a new car (our son had an accident with our older van and we had to get a replacement vehicle.) We looked at all the new high mileage and it was depressing! He ended up getting a roomy Impala LT that cost less than most of the smaller cars we looked at, and him being a really tall guy, (he’s 6′4″) and he drives an hour and a half to work each way, he decided on the Impala because it was more for the money (toys, comfort, while still getting reasonably good gas mileage.)
We get to talking about all sorts of things on this blog,don’t we? LOL!
10 December 2006, on 10:43 pm
lol, Sorry Old Git, I called you an Olf Fit. Darn fat fingers.
10 December 2006, on 10:46 pm
Car companies are in business to mke money. Once gas prices dropped a bit, SUV sales went back up, and hybrid sales dropped off. What are they to think? The only way you’re going to get an affordable fuel-efficient vehicle is if the government takes over, ala the VolksWagen. Car companies are going to make what sells, you can’t expect them to do any less. If WE’RE serious about it, then we won’t buy the SUVs when we don’t really need them. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
10 December 2006, on 11:37 pm
It’s all academic, folks. We’re far beyond the point where anything can be done to correct the climate situation. I won’t be around when the stuff hits the fan, but a lot of you will. I sincerely wish you luck.
11 December 2006, on 12:01 am
If we get to that point, I’m “Mad Max/Thunderdome”-ing it all the way.
11 December 2006, on 5:49 am
Revenant,
Sorry to hear about your fat fingers,lol.
Re your comment: “Not really, unless they were all being driven at the same time. If you used them for their intended purpose then your vehicle use would be exactly the same as it is now.”
Whilst that’s very true regarding their use per se, the fact is that the CO2 footprint, or whatever the trendy phrase is, would be approx. 4 times higher since factories would have had to produce 4 vehicles for the 1 I actually use. On top of that, the insurance company is saved the energy cost of processing 4 sets of insurance documents, the government the cost of 4 sets of vehicle permits and licences, the testing station 4 sets of emission controls and so on.
So really I’m being quite virtuous
Not that I give a rat’s-arse, since all I see when I look around is that our lords and masters are quite happy to be shuttled around in their huge gas-guzzlers and private jets whilst telling us that it’s all our fault.
11 December 2006, on 8:28 am
The Old Git wrote:
This is, of course, the crux of it all. It’s a tool to tax you into oblivion, and to line the pockets of environmental organizations.
11 December 2006, on 8:30 am
The Old Git wrote:
But, you would be using each vehicle only 1/4 as much, and therefore they would last 4 times longer than the one, meaning you wouldn’t have to replace them as soon. So it would all be pretty much the same.
11 December 2006, on 10:37 am
Here’s another illustration of how the science is twisted by those who make the decisions:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=95efa8fe-638b-4058-95c3-60343f461cac
11 December 2006, on 3:12 pm
Having visited the Philippines four times; and having a Filipina wife, I can confidently say that Filipinos are some of the most religious (and superstitious people) on Earth. The country is ~90% Catholic.
Of course, if Falwell, Robertson and other protestant fundamentalists are to be believed, Catholic aren’t real Christians anyway. In fact, the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” referred to in the Book of Revelation.
So, maybe they had it coming, notwithstanding the fact that the Spaniards and Americans pretty much dictated their culture over most of the country’s existence.
11 December 2006, on 3:21 pm
Revenant,
As they say, follow the money. While certainly not positive proof, it is highly suspicious when those opposing an emerging scientific consensus have an overwhelmingly monetary interest in the outcome of the debate. Is it coincidence that energy companies are among the chief backers of “opposition scientific research” on global warming” I suppose so. Just as it could have been coincidental that tobacco companies were objective when they started their own research labs and hired their own scientists to raise doubts on the emerging scientific consensus regarding second-hand smoke.
11 December 2006, on 4:44 pm
Of course, if Falwell, Robertson and other protestant fundamentalists are to be believed, Catholic aren’t real Christians anyway. In fact, the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” referred to in the Book of Revelation.
Since the Catholic church is supposedly the same Church founded by Jesus of Nazareth and maintained through Apostolic Succession from the Twelve Apostles, and the protestant denominations are branches of this first Catholic church, what does that say then about all other xian denominations that are branches and offshoots of this “Whore of Babylon?”
11 December 2006, on 4:45 pm
LesserFool wrote:
if you’re going to follow the money, you’ll find that the energy companies funding of “skeptics” is FAR less than the funding of “alarmists” by environmental lobbies and world goverments.
For me, I have no vested interest in seeing anything bad happen to the planet (would anyone really want this to happen?). But, like the global cooling, overpopulation, resource scarcity, etc.. scares of the past that have proven false, this seems like just another one to me. Scientists were just as convinced that were were entering another ice age back in the 70s, until things started warming up. I suspect things will start cooling again, and then we’ll be urged to buy the biggest baddest SUVs we can afford and drive them whenever and wherever possible, like from the driveway to the mailbox, and then to the shed, and back to the front door.
Everyone agrees that the earth’s climate has changed over the eons, but THIS time it’s all because of us. I just don’t buy that.
I really wish I had more of a scientific background to be able to argue the point more correctly. Am I 100% sure that we’re not changing the global climate? No, absolutely not. But I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that we are. I’ve seen a WHOLE bunch of ‘ifs’, ‘maybes’, ‘projecteds’, ‘potentials’, etc. But precious few ‘definites’.
I will continue to do what I can to reduce dependence on foreign oil, for the simple fact that I don’t like giving money to Islamic fucktards who then want to blow us up because we call Muhammed a retard. And personally I think an all-electric car would be really cool. It’s just too bad there’s no place to plug it in if you live in an apartment complex.
I sure wish my company allowed me to work from home, I wouldn’t need to drive nearly as much, just to get groceries and such, and could even ride my bike more, to help get rid of my expanding mid-section ;).
Sorry, another tangent
11 December 2006, on 4:49 pm
This is a post on my blog, while not pertaining to climate, I feel is relevant regarding the original post. About how invoking god when thousands die is just the most retarded thing imaginable.
http://www.rat-rant.com/drupal/node/990
11 December 2006, on 9:27 pm
Revenant: I will continue to do what I can to reduce dependence on foreign oil, for the simple fact that I don’t like giving money to Islamic fucktards who then want to blow us up because we call Muhammed a retard. And personally I think an all-electric car would be really cool. It’s just too bad there’s no place to plug it in if you live in an apartment complex.
I sure wish my company allowed me to work from home, I wouldn’t need to drive nearly as much, just to get groceries and such, and could even ride my bike more, to help get rid of my expanding mid-section ;-).
A hearty ramen to that, Rev! And I would add that “invoking god when thousands die” is not just “retarded,” but nasty, vicious, heartless, and uncaring - but then again, they’re just reflecting what their concept of this god depicts.
12 December 2006, on 10:08 am
One of my favorite videos seems fitting for this thread.
12 December 2006, on 4:40 pm
Wow, Star, thank you; I already liked the song, but I’d never seen the video. The words “darkly gorgeous imagery” come to mind - and now it’s one of my favorites, too, appropriate now for the Winter Solstice as well as for this thread. Ozzy and Rob Zombie (he directed) really rock.
13 December 2006, on 1:06 am
I tried to post this comment a few days ago but it didn’t take. So here I am trying again:
Blaming the typhoon on either god or human-caused climate change is based on emotional responses with little or no scientific evidence to support such a determination. Regardless of whether one believes there is enough evidence to support global climate change as a result of human activities, one cannot say conclusively that this typhoon is a result of global warming.
The extensive destruction caused by the typhoon can, however, be linked to human practices since engineering experts are able to show in models that removing a grove of trees holding soil together will result in mud slides. Dredging rivers and removing natural flood barriers increases the risk of flooding and loss of life. So if you want to blame big business and “greed” for the loss of so many humans you may have some support.
There are good reasons for protecting the environment that have nothing to do with global climate change. Clean air is always more pleasant and healthy to breathe than foul vehicle or factory emissions. Having a source of unpolluted drinking water not only reduces illness and disease it saves communities money in expensive water purification equipment.
On the other hand, the author, Father Shay Cullen, has exploited this terrible tragedy to jump up on his bio-degradable soap box and present his putrid “god is love” insanity as is evident in this phrase toward the end of the article: Let us not blame anyone’s God for the evils in this world. Let us put our trust and belief in a Higher Power that is the essence of eternal goodness and infinite love, best represented by the compassion of Jesus Christ.
How I hate it when people exploit such terrible tragedy!
13 December 2006, on 10:10 am
Lynda wrote:
Very well-said, Lynda. I agree that land use is a real problem, and not restricted to any one government or culture. The problem is population. The more people, the more demand for services (water, sewer, electric, etc.) and the more land use changes.
Example, in an effort to grow crops for “renewable” energy, one small island country (can’t remember where exactly, near Indonesia I believe), is burning down acres and acres of trees. As a result, people who live there are constantly breathing smoke. There’s hardly a daytime there any more due to the thick blankets of smoke.
An example of environMENTALism gone wrong. But these small countries must do something to bring income, and since groups like Greenpeace don’t want you to fly there any more for tourism, the only places that will suffer are the ones who rely on the modern infrastructure for basic economic survival.
13 December 2006, on 10:36 am
“Once the steel mills went out of business and they leveled many of them, and industry left the area, trees flourished, skies are blue and clear. It’s a whole different atmosphere and natural environment on Chicago’s southeast side now. ” Post#9 Stardust
I’m sure it is better in the region than it used to be but i thought I would pass this along to you. A few yeaqrs ago I was driving to Chicago from Indianapolis on I65. About 75 miles south of I80 I noticed that the sky apeared to be a brownish orange color to the north. I took off my sun glasses (polarized) and I could see the same area but now it was just a darker grayish blue. I watched this phenomenom until I realized what I was seeing was an ozone/pollutant blanket that was hanging over Chicagoland. When I got there what had been a blue sky sunny day in central Indiana was a hazey/cloudy day in Chicago.
I realize that this proves nothing scientific, but I can speculate that this scenario repeated all across the globe in urban areas far greater in size would have an adverse impact on the climate of the world. For any one to say they want more evidence to prove that humans are having an impact on the environment is really an ostrich approach to what man does to this planet.
As to the original thread: People who want to lay blame at the feet of others often are in denial about taking responsiblity for their own actions. People who want to lay the blame for natural disasters on humans that don’t believe in their god are in denial too. They just can’t face the reality that nature has a harsh side that recognizes only three rules: 1.The only constant in this world is change, 2. Everything dies sooner or later, and 3. Nature is the ultimate recycling machine.
13 December 2006, on 11:16 am
And one other thing to keep in mind. Those steel mills went somewhere else. So now some other inhabitant of another country is experiencing what Stardust, et al, did. While Chicagoland is nice and airy and the trees are happy, somewhere else the populace lives under grimy skies.
Point being, we can clean up our act here, but we can’t force other emerging countries to do the same. As I just read elsewhere, that would take world totalitarian rule, which none of us want. Just like Iran and North Korea assert their right to do whatever they wish…
19 December 2006, on 5:19 pm
Revenant: As I just read elsewhere, that would take world totalitarian rule, which none of us want.
True, but I’ve heard recently that the giant multi-national corporations now pretty much manage most of the world’s economies - which would certainly qualify them for the position of New World Order. Maybe we’re already under totalitarian rule, just not outright political - but actually economic and financial…