NASA, liberal news media pretend El Nino is a bad thing

13 people died in storms in the southern U.S. due to El Nino, probably. Big frigging deal. Here is how many die in a normal, cold winter. Stupid people, the left-wing media, NEVER consider (willfully or not) a bigger picture.


Winter kills: Excess Deaths in the Winter Months
Anthony Watts / January 6, 2010

108,500 Deaths in the US in 2008; 36,700 in England and Wales Last Winter; 5,600 in Canada (2006); 7,000 in Australia (1997-2006 Average); Thousands in Other Developed Countries

Indur M. Goklany

Since extreme cold has gripped much of the Northern Hemisphere, some newspapers have been keeping a tally of the number of deaths obviously caused by extreme cold (e.g., freezing). But the BBC's Health Correspondent, Clare Murphy, in a very timely and, in my opinion, excellent article, How cold turns up the heat on health, reminds us that many more deaths occur from chronic conditions that are exacerbated by cold weather. She also notes that, "For every degree the temperature drops below 18C, deaths in the UK go up by nearly 1.5%."

Following is a compilation of excess deaths during the winter months (compared to what occurs on average during the rest of the year) in a number of developed countries in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Unfortunately, our politicians complain about the warmth and would like to make the climate cooler if they could, even as they bemoan the costs of health care.

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 4:46:37 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
13 people died in storms in the southern U.S. due to El Nino, probably. Big frigging deal.

For them it was. I understand that several people who partied rather than heading inland were killed by Hurricane Camille back in '70.


Here is how many die in a normal, cold winter. Stupid people, the left-wing media, NEVER consider (willfully or not) a bigger picture.

The warmingist media should be made to spend a couple of winters at the south pole and when they return be made to walk instead of being driven. That ought to shut them up.

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 6:07:10 AM UTC-7, wrote:

The warmingist media should be made to spend a couple of winters at the south
pole and when they return be made to walk instead of being driven. That ought
to shut them up.

What about people who don't accept what scientists tell them? Shouldn't they have
to do without science?

Yes, it's hypocritical to say we shouldn't use oil, and then go right on using
it, expecting someone else to do without. But that doesn't change the reality
of global warming, it just raises questions of how we can do something about it.

John Savard

On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:59:28 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

Yes, it's hypocritical to say we shouldn't use oil, and then go right on using
it, expecting someone else to do without. But that doesn't change the reality
of global warming, it just raises questions of how we can do something about it.

I don't think it's hypocritical to have a carbon footprint and be
outspoken about finding ways to reduce carbon output. What would be
hypocritical would be having a larger carbon footprint than necessary
given your lifestyle choices.

On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 17:52:25 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:59:28 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

wrote:

Yes, it's hypocritical to say we shouldn't use oil, and then go
right on using
it, expecting someone else to do without. But that doesn't change
the reality
of global warming, it just raises questions of how we can do
something about it.

I don't think it's hypocritical to have a carbon footprint and be
outspoken about finding ways to reduce carbon output. What would be
hypocritical would be having a larger carbon footprint than
necessary
given your lifestyle choices.

Do we have any obligations when choosing our lifestyle? Or does
everyone have the right to choose lifestyle without restrictions?

On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 19:59:21 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Do we have any obligations when choosing our lifestyle? Or does
everyone have the right to choose lifestyle without restrictions?

Well, for the most part I wouldn't advocate legal restrictions on
lifestyle choices. People do make lifestyle choices that I personally
consider representative of poor moral development, but I don't believe
laws should generally be based on moral strictures.

I think a good general approach is that people should live in a way
that makes them happy without making others unhappy, and that may
certainly involve having a large carbon footprint. The moral failure
in my eyes isn't the carbon footprint itself, but having one larger
than necessary. For instance, if you can afford a large heated pool,
you may have a choice of heating it with fossil fuels or with the Sun.
In the absence of other factors, choosing the former is a poor moral
choice. Choosing to have the pool probably isn't.

On Friday, 1 January 2016 14:59:31 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 6:07:10 AM UTC-7, wrote:

The warmingist media should be made to spend a couple of winters at the south
pole and when they return be made to walk instead of being driven. That ought
to shut them up.

What about people who don't accept what scientists tell them? Shouldn't they have
to do without science?

Yes, it's hypocritical to say we shouldn't use oil, and then go right on using
it, expecting someone else to do without. But that doesn't change the reality
of global warming, it just raises questions of how we can do something about it.

John Savard

Nor does it change the FACT warming will yield benefits, probably beyond any negatives that come with it, but you NEVER hear this from the left-wing media or the warmists. But apparently, moron greenies have less brains than animals, too stupid to move if a coastal area is flooded which, according to them, might be one consequence. Another reason coastal flooding may be better than no flooding is that abandoning creaky-old cities like New York could be an economic benefit. It's very likely resettling people and building new cities will be cheaper than fixing the aging infrastructure in cities 100 years old or more. The cost of a complete fix for New York has been estimated at north of $5 trillion dollars.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:13:38 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Nor does it change the FACT warming will yield benefits, probably beyond any negatives that come with it, but you NEVER hear this from the left-wing media or the warmists.

Of course, as someone who gets all their news from Faux, it's hardly
surprising you believe this. But in fact, there is a great deal of
information published about positive impacts from global warming.

However, you will not find any reputable source that finds the
positives outweigh the negatives. Global warming is potentially
civilization destroying, and that's a simple fact.

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 12:13:40 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 1 January 2016 14:59:31 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 6:07:10 AM UTC-7, wrote:

The warmingist media should be made to spend a couple of winters at the south
pole and when they return be made to walk instead of being driven. That ought
to shut them up.

What about people who don't accept what scientists tell them? Shouldn't they have
to do without science?

Yes, it's hypocritical to say we shouldn't use oil, and then go right on using
it, expecting someone else to do without. But that doesn't change the reality
of global warming, it just raises questions of how we can do something about it.

John Savard

Nor does it change the FACT warming will yield benefits, probably beyond any negatives that come with it, but you NEVER hear this from the left-wing media or the warmists. But apparently, moron greenies have less brains than animals, too stupid to move if a coastal area is flooded which, according to them, might be one consequence. Another reason coastal flooding may be better than no flooding is that abandoning creaky-old cities like New York could be an economic benefit. It's very likely resettling people and building new cities will be cheaper than fixing the aging infrastructure in cities 100 years old or more. The cost of a complete fix for New York has been estimated at north of $5 trillion dollars.

Along with parts of Boston, you would probably have to abandon Miami and parts of south Florida, certainly New Orleans, most of the cities along the Atlantic coast, parts of Washington DC including most of the government buildings, low lying areas along the Gulf coast, Galveston, and probably lots of other valuable real estate.

For your info, NY city is not an old creaky city. There is a lot of building going on there, lots of new high rise sky scrapers. Same with Chicago and other large metro areas.

Ever been to Chicago? A very well designed city with 34 miles of parkway along the lake front with walking/bicycle paths, green spaces, museums, parks, marinas, fishing, boating, beaches, amusement parks, great restaurants galore and other things too numerous to mention. For every ethnic group there are whole neighborhoods of great eateries, more than you could attend in a lifetime.

All these cities are positive contributors to society, same as your Canadian cities of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary etc. Why would you want to destroy New York City, Boston, and others?

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:13:40 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

Nor does it change the FACT warming will yield benefits, probably beyond any
negatives that come with it, but you NEVER hear this from the left-wing media
or the warmists.

Of course not, because that's irrelevant.

Sure warming may be beneficial to agriculture in Canada and Siberia.

But compared to many tropical countries facing starvation as existing food
crops wither, that's small potatoes.

The Earth is a global ecosystem in a delicate balance; upset it, and you have
species going extinct right and left that can't move to new habitats.

John Savard