AlleyCat wrote
> Most of them are neo-Nazis who should have been shot
> years-ago.
>
>
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/opinion/sunday/hurricane-
> harvey-climate-change.html
>
> *We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?*
> by 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
> [
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/fashion/melania-trump-
> hurricane-harvey-heels-texas.html] — 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.
>
> That’s awkward for a president who has tweeted climate change
> skepticism more than 100 times
> [
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
> politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-
> climate-agreement], even suggesting that climate change is a
> Chinese hoax
> [
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/26589529219124838
5
> ? lang=en], and who has announced he will pull the U.S. out
> of the Paris climate accord. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s
> head of the Environmental Protection Agency, says it’s
> “misplaced” to talk about Harvey and climate change
> [
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pruitt-opportunistic-
> misplaced-hurricane-harvey-climate-change].
>
> Really? To me, avoiding the topic is like a group of frogs
> sitting in a beaker, fretting about the growing warmth of the
> water but neglecting to jump out. Climate scientists are in
> agreement that there are at least two ways climate change is
> making hurricanes worse.
>
> First, hurricanes arise from warm waters, and the Gulf of
> Mexico has warmed by two to four degrees Fahrenheit over the
> long-term average. The result is more intense storms.
>
> “There is a general consensus that the frequency of high-
> category (3, 4 and 5) hurricanes should increase as the
> climate warms,” Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at M.I.T.,
> tells me. Likewise, three experts examined the data over 30
> years and concluded that Atlantic tropical cyclones are
> getting stronger
> [
https://search.proquest.com/openview/848e9cbe4aa5f7cb50467fd
8
> 3 2e9dc09/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40569].
>
> Second, as the air warms, it holds more water vapor, so the
> storms dump more rain. That’s why there’s a big increase in
> heavy downpours (“extreme precipitation events”). Nine of the
> top 10 years for heavy downpours in the U.S. have occurred
> since 1990 [
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-
> change-indicators-heavy-precipitation].
>
> “Climate change played a role in intensifying the winds and
> rainfall associated with Hurricane Harvey,” says Charles
> Greene, a climate scientist at Cornell. He notes that there’s
> also a third way, not yet proven, in which climate change may
> be implicated: As Arctic sea ice is lost, wind systems can
> meander and create blockages — like those that locked Harvey
> in place over Houston. It was this stalling that led Harvey
> to be so destructive.
>
> there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to
> the idea of human-caused climate change.
>
> Last year was the third in a row to set a record for highest
> global average surface temperature, according to NASA
> [
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-
> warmest-year-on-record-globally]. The 10 years of greatest
> loss of sea ice are all in the last decade
> [
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-
> ice-graph/]. And poor Houston has suffered three “500-year
> floods” in the last three years.
>
> 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
> [
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/sunday/as-donald-
> trump-denies-climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it.html].
>
> 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.
>
> We even subsidize such dares through the dysfunctional
> National Flood Insurance Program
> [
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/opinion/flood-insurance-
> program-.html]. This offers underpriced insurance,
> encouraging people to live in low-lying areas — compounded by
> flood maps that are old and unreliable. One Mississippi home
> flooded 34 times in 32 years [
http://www.pewtrusts.org/
> ~/media/assets/2016/10/repeatedly_flooded_properties_cost_bil
l
> i ons.pdf?la=en], resulting in payouts worth almost 10 times
> what the home was worth.
>
> The truth is that what happened in Houston was not only
> predictable, it was actually predicted. Last year,
> 'ProPublica' and 'The Texas Tribune' published a devastating
> article about Houston as a “sitting duck for the next big
> hurricane” and warned that Texas was unprepared
> [
https://projects.propublica.org/houston/].
>
> In other domains, we constantly manage risks that are
> uncertain. We address a threat from the Islamic State or
> North Korea even when it’s complicated and hard to assess. So
> why can’t our leaders be as alert to climate risks that in
> the long run may be far more destructive?
>
> Sure, definitively linking any one storm to climate change is
> difficult. Likewise, when a particular person contracts lung
> cancer, it may be impossible to prove that smoking was the
> cause that time. But it’d be absurd for America to discuss
> the challenge of lung cancer only through the prism of
> suffering patients and heroic doctors (and the high heels of
> the visitors in the cancer ward!) without also considering
> tobacco policy.
>
> A week and a half ago, Republicans and Democrats traveled to
> see the solar eclipse and gazed upward at the appointed hour
> [
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/opinion/watching-the-
> eclipse-in-oregon.html], 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?
>
you tell us, you're the sister fucker