Comments on: Tough Questions on Hurricanes and Global Warming?

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:20:23 +0000

No abortion/breast cancer connection? Consider this: British researcher Patrick Carroll presented his data at the Joint Statistical Meetings at the Minneapolis Convention Center – the largest gathering of statisticians in North America.

Carroll directs the Pensions and Population Research Institute in London. His research showed that abortion is the best predictor of three British breast cancer trends:

Trend #1: Upper class women are the most likely to develop breast cancer and die of the disease. For other cancers, lower social classes experience higher incidence and mortality rates. Abortion before a first birth (the most carcinogenic abortion) and delayed first birth among upper class women provide the best explanations for this trend.

Trend #2: Variations in breast cancer rates among regions of the British Isles can be explained by differences in abortion rates. Breast cancer rates are greatest in the South East (116 per 100,000) where abortion rates are higher than in other regions. Breast cancer incidence is lowest in Ireland (97 per 100,000) where abortion is prohibited.

Trend #3: Breast cancer rates increased approximately 70% between 1971 and 2002. Breast cancer incidence for women aged 50-54 in successive birth cohorts is highly correlated with abortion incidence, and is less highly correlated with other factors associated with breast cancer, i.e., fertility, prevalence of childlessness and age at first birth.

Carroll’s research is significant because he used national data reporting breast cancers and abortions. Therefore, it’s free of any possibility of a hypothetical problem called “recall bias.”

By: LOU MAGOWAN

LOU MAGOWAN — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:50:30 +0000

WITH ALL OF OUR TECHNOLOGY, WHY CAN’T WE SET OFF AN EXPLOSION IN THE CENTER OF A TROPICAL STORM BEFORE IT TURNS INTO A HURRICANE IN ORDER TO DISRUPT THE CIRCULAR MOTION AND POWER OF THE STORM? WOULD THIS BE FEASABLE?

By: Quicksilver ×›×¡×¤×™×ª

Quicksilver ×›×¡×¤×™×ª — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:03:23 +0000

Katrina, hurricanes and global warming

I caution against blaming Katrina on global warming, as does Ross Gelbspan (generally a good environmental journalist). Granted, oil and energy policies should change, but Arthur Waskow overplays the Katrina card. See the analysis, links and debate at …

By: Hugh Deeming

Hugh Deeming — Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:11:14 +0000

In response to Steve Bloom’s fears that New Orleans will be rebuilt with little apparent regard for future vulnerability I’d like to steer you toward this eloquently written history of the area and its strategic importance:

http://www.stratfor.com/news/archive/050903-geopolitics_katrina.php

It makes for uncomfortable reading.

By: Quicksilver ×›×¡×¤×™×ª

Quicksilver ×›×¡×¤×™×ª — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:03:35 +0000

Katrina, hurricanes and global warming

By: Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr. — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:22:13 +0000

Steve-

Thanks for this comment. In fact, your thought experiment was the subject of this paper we did in 1999. Have a look:

Pielke, Jr., R. A., R.A. Klein, and D. Sarewitz, 2000: Turning the Big Knob: Energy Policy as a Means to Reduce Weather Impacts. Energy and Environment, Vol. 11, No. 3, 255-276.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-250-2000.07.pdf

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:07:16 +0000

Roger, I’d like to propose a thought experiment: Assume that in 30 years the state of the science is such that we can say there is a 10% global warming signal in North Atlantic hurricane energy, but that the signal cannot be resolved at the level of individual hurricanes.
Given these assumptions, will the science have any useful contribution to make to public policy above and beyond what we know now (e.g., major Gulf Coast city below sea level = bad idea)? You of course already know this, but I will point out for the record that policy makers have already ignored the much less subtle North Atlantic hurricane cycle, and many of them are now openly advocating for rebuilding New Orleans as was. Is there any possible additional science that will have a chance of getting through to these people?

By: Dylan Otto Krider

Dylan Otto Krider — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:47:52 +0000

Tom,
I wasn’t referring to you. That is a sentiment I’ve heard expressed on other blogs and FOX News. Brit Hume’s panel unanimously agreed that yes, Federal aid for these people was inevitable, but that they really shouldn’t have lived there. Don’t get it.

By: Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:45:29 +0000

Dylan, I certainly did not intend to suggest that the residents of New Orleans were in any way at fault for what happened for not leaving the city once the precarious nature of its existence became widely known. If I gave that impression, it was a big mistake.

My colleague, Mark Schleifstein — a Pullitzer-prize winning journalist — works at the New Orleans Times-Picayune. (Which evacuated to Houma this afternoon.) I believbe he was the first to write about the doomsday scenario, several years ago, that now seems to be unfolding in the Big Easy. And he lost his house and everything he owned today. Of all the people in New Orleans, Mark saw this coming more than anyone else, I think. And I most definitely did not mean to suggest that he — or any other resident of New Orleans — bears some responsibility for what happened. They are victims of an unfathomable event.

As for shrinking marshes, Schleifstein and his colleagues at the Times-Picayune were writing about it back in the 1990s — and they won a Pullitzer Prize, based in part on this work. See http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1997/public-service/works/3-1/ and http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1997/public-service/works/3-3/ and http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1997/public-service/works/3-4/.

By: Ross McNaughton

Ross McNaughton — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:45:52 +0000

I’m sorry but I find it extremely patronising that they think the only way to sway the opinions of the politicians and the public is by telling them “scary stories”.
Do they think us that stupid that these tactics are the only way to get through?
If they exagerate and misrepresent information and “blame” the energy industry why would they expect anything other than industry to invest in their own science which attempts to refute the misrepresentations. But when you look at it many of those doing the refuting are concerned scientists and individuals who have no backing from industry but are instead motivated by the misuse of science. We have ended up battling over whos science is worse.
The reallity is that the vast majority of energy used in the world is generated by fossil fuels and burning biomass simply saying “don’t do it it’s bad and if you do the global warming bogey man will get you” doesn’t change that.
The proponents of Wind and Solar solutions know that when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine there is no power but will not raise this as a legitimate problem because it damages their “cause”, more misrepresentation.
My daughter was doing a school project on inventions she chose the steam engine, when I asked her why is was important she said it replaced windmills and water wheels which when the wind didn’t blow or there was not enough water it meant that industry stopped. She is 10 years old and she gets it it is not just replacement but reliability which is also important. The industrial revolution did not happen because of the steam engine but because of reliability of power.
If we want to fix global warming we could start by not blaming the energy industry and instead work with them on realistic solutions. If this means taking money off scientists who are trying to work out if the temperature is going to increase by 5 100ths of a degree or 1 100th of a degree a year then so be it.
I am sorry if this is a bit of a rant but I am very tired of the global warming alarmists who think we are to stupid to recognise the problem.