German Minister Blames American People for Hurricane!

[GTaudiophile]

US pollution partly to blame
for Katrina: German minister

30 August 2005

BERLIN - Germany's environment minister hinted Tuesday that Americans were to blame for Hurricane Katrina due to the U.S. refusal to cut greenhouse gases which many experts say cause global warming.

"The increasing frequency of these natural events can only be explained through global warming which is caused by people," said Trittin who is member of the Greens in a ZDF TV interview.

Trittin contrasted Germany's cutting of greenhouse gas emissions by 18.5 per cent since 1990, with the U.S. from which emissions have continued to increase.

"A U.S. citizen causes about two and a half times as much greenhouse gas as the average European," said Trittin.

Commenting on Trittin's remarks, ZDF said the minister "saw a parallel between the hurricane and U.S. wasting of energy."

The German government has been strongly critical of U.S. President George W. Bush's refusal to ratify the Kyoto agreement on global warming.

At least 55 people were left dead when Hurricane Katrina swept over the southern coast of the United States on Monday.


Source

---------------

While Americans are indeed wasteful and tend to be disrespectful of the environment, I don't feel man is the sole cause of global warming, if that exists. It's just like man to think he's the center of the universe, whereas I feel old Mother Earth knows a thing or two we don't.

Otherwise, it's an election year in Germany. In 18 days to be exact. The Red-Green coalition will say anything to remain in power.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It's not just the German minister. RFK Jr. regurgitates the same BS:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-...jr/afor-they-that-sow-the-_b_6396.html

?For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind? (101 comments )
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.

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.

Embiciles adn idiots with no knowledge of weather whatsoever, either historically or on a worldwide scale.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200508300805.asp

If cable TV had existed in 1886, everyone in the U.S. might have been whipped into a hurricane panic. A record seven hurricanes made landfall that year, including a Category 4 storm that hit Texas and would have had on-the-spot cable newscasters dramatically fighting the wind to deliver their reports. All during the 1890s, reporters could have done the same along the Atlantic seaboard, as it was hammered by more powerful hurricanes than it would be in any decade except the 1950s.

Hurricane Katrina, which slammed the Gulf Coast and got eyewall-to-eyewall media coverage, is sure to increase the sense that there is an epidemic of hurricanes (along, of course, with an epidemic of shark attacks and missing blond girls). Which inevitably raises the question: "What can we do about it?" For some scientists and activists ? working on the assumption that anything they don't like must be caused by industrial emissions ? the answer is stop global warming.

There is hardly an undesirable natural event, from wildfires to hurricanes, that former Vice President Al Gore hasn't blamed on global warming. As if it weren't for fossil-fuel emissions, the weather would always be predictable and pleasant. An outfit called Scientists and Engineers for Change put up a billboard in Florida before last year's presidential election stating it starkly: "Global warming = Worse hurricanes. George Bush just doesn't get it." Ah, yes: Why are Bush and the neocons focused on the war in Iraq, when there is a very real threat to the U.S. they should be addressing in the waters of the Atlantic?

Has global warming increased the frequency of hurricanes? One of the nation's foremost hurricane experts, William Gray, points out that if global warming is at work, cyclones should be increasing not just in the Atlantic but elsewhere, in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. They aren't. The number of cyclones per year worldwide fluctuates pretty steadily between 80 and 100. There's actually been a small overall decline in tropical cyclones since 1995, and Atlantic hurricanes declined from 1970 to 1994, even as the globe was heating up.

It seems that Atlantic hurricanes come in spurts, or as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration puts it in more technical language, "a quasi-cyclic multi-decade regime that alternates between active and quiet phases." The late 1920s through the 1960s were active; the 1970s to early 1990s quiet; and since 1995 ? as anyone living in Florida or Gulfport, Miss., can tell you ? seems to be another active phase.

But if hurricanes aren't more frequent, are they more powerful? Warm water fuels hurricanes, so the theory is that as the ocean's surface heats up, hurricanes will pack more punch. An article in Nature ? after questionable jiggering with the historical wind data ? argues that hurricanes have doubled in strength because of global warming. Climatologist Patrick Michaels counters that if hurricanes had doubled in their power it would be obvious to everyone and there would be no need to write controversial papers about it.

Indeed, if you adjust for population growth and skyrocketing property values, hurricanes don't appear to be any more destructive today. According to the work of Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, of the top five most destructive storms this century, only one occurred after 1950 ? Hurricane Andrew in 1992. An NOAA analysis says there have been fewer Category 4 storms throughout the past 35 years than would have been expected given 20th-century averages.

None of this data matters particularly, since proponents of global warming will continue to link warming with hurricanes. It generates headlines in a way that debates about tiny increments of warming don't. And it feeds a conceit that is oddly comforting: that whatever is wrong with the world is caused by us and fixable by us. Alas, it's not so. Mother Nature can be a cruel and unpredictable mistress, and sometimes all we can do is head for the high ground.

 

[ahurtt]

Yeah I guess Katrina hitting the Gulf Coast had nothing at all to do with the fact that the Gulf region has historically been an active hurricane zone due to its closer proximity to the equator and more tropical climate for how many centuries now??

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Yeah I guess Katrina hitting the Gulf Coast had nothing at all to do with the fact that the Gulf region has historically been an active hurricane zone due to its closer proximity to the equator and more tropical climate for how many centuries now??

no, its because we eat too much mcdonalds.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Yeah I guess Katrina hitting the Gulf Coast had nothing at all to do with the fact that the Gulf region has historically been an active hurricane zone due to its closer proximity to the equator and more tropical climate for how many centuries now??

no, its because we eat too much mcdonalds.

the planet is starting to wobble because of the excess weight on that side therefore causing more turbulance which turn into tomatoes which mcdonalds use on their hamburgers.. its all a plot!!!

 

[Todd33]

Of course RFK Jr. didn't say greenhouse gases caused the hurricane, but I didn't expect TLC to read his own links. He probably just found a cute title on a right wing blog and cut and paste it here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Of course RFK Jr. didn't say greenhouse gases caused the hurricane, but I didn't expect TLC to read his own links. He probably just found a cute title on a right wing blog and cut and paste it here.

You mean in this statement, where he doesn't say it?

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.

It would help if you actually read the article before trolling, tool.

 

[Todd33]

He was making a statement about the strength of hurricanes and greenhouse gases. He was not saying that Katrina exists only because of humans. Stop parsing and think a little. RFK Jr. is a smart guy, but he's an activist. Of course he going to use a big media event like this to shine some attention to global warming. But I guess it much easier to villify people and ignore their message. I suppose you think dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the evinment has zero effect on hurricanes. Just rape the Earth, you will die soon anyhow huh?

 

[desy]

I think since Europe started the industrial revolution maybe they are at fault eh?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Todd33
He was making a statement about the strength of hurricanes and greenhouse gases. He was not saying that Katrina exists only because of humans. Stop parsing and think a little. RFK Jr. is a smart guy, but he's an activist. Of course he going to use a big media event like this to shine some attention to global warming. But I guess it much easier to villify people and ignore their message. I suppose you think dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the evinment has zero effect on hurricanes. Just rape the Earth, you will die soon anyhow huh?

He was performing a political circus monkey act. He made the following statements:

"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."

He's saying Katrina was our fault. Then he goes on to say:

"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."

JHC, how obscenely politically hackish can RFK Jr. be? Not to mention that there no actual correlation established between global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes. In fact, according to the article I linked, historical records would agrue against any such correlation.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: desy
I think since Europe started the industrial revolution maybe they are at fault eh?

Hehe.

He's just a politician, he doesn't know jack. He's just using it to take a swing at other idiots.

 

[Forsythe]

Has global warming increased the frequency of hurricanes? One of the nation's foremost hurricane experts, William Gray, points out that if global warming is at work, cyclones should be increasing not just in the Atlantic but elsewhere, in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. They aren't. The number of cyclones per year worldwide fluctuates pretty steadily between 80 and 100. There's actually been a small overall decline in tropical cyclones since 1995, and Atlantic hurricanes declined from 1970 to 1994, even as the globe was heating up.

lol, i'd like to know what climate model he uses.
Maybe he's just god himself?

 

[chcarnage]

Germany holds elections in three weeks and Schroeder has made good experiences with America-criticism during the last election campaign (he was strictly against German involvment in Iraq).

I doubt his strategy will save his bacon a second time, though. Calm down and wait until the end of September.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Not to mention that there no actual correlation established between global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes. In fact, according to the article I linked, historical records would agrue against any such correlation.

Well, he does say that a study published linked global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes:

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.

Has anybody read the study referenced? (I have not)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Has global warming increased the frequency of hurricanes? One of the nation's foremost hurricane experts, William Gray, points out that if global warming is at work, cyclones should be increasing not just in the Atlantic but elsewhere, in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. They aren't. The number of cyclones per year worldwide fluctuates pretty steadily between 80 and 100. There's actually been a small overall decline in tropical cyclones since 1995, and Atlantic hurricanes declined from 1970 to 1994, even as the globe was heating up.

lol, i'd like to know what climate model he uses.
Maybe he's just god himself?

WTF does a climate model have to do with his statement? He's basing his claim on historical records. And as far as hurricane experts go, William Gray is the closest thing to god there is in that department.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Not to mention that there no actual correlation established between global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes. In fact, according to the article I linked, historical records would agrue against any such correlation.

Well, he does say that a study published linked global warming and the incidence and/or strength of hurricanes:

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.

Has anybody read the study referenced? (I have not)

The only problem is that there's no increased prevalence of destructive hurricanes so the initial premise is invalid. But you can go back 50 and 100 years to find equivalents. You'd expect that if global warming were responsible that the incidents would increase with some correlation as temperatures rise. That doesn't appear to be happening. Is more destruction happening? Of course. But it's not because of hurricanes increasing in strength, it's because of population densities increasing in the coastal areas where hurricanes strike.

 

[jpeyton]

When did GT give Rip access to his account?

 

[Queasy]

RFK Jr. is an intercoursing Richard for trying to exploit this tragedy at all...let alone so soon while rescue efforts are still under way.
/thread

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
When did GT give Rip access to his account?

Who is Rip?

 

[vi edit]

Nothing like using devistating natural disasters to push your political viewpoints when you are 6,000 miles away from where it hit.

You go boy!

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Ah, how easy it is to dismiss it all!

I guess you forgot to look at this one:

[

"A U.S. citizen causes about two and a half times as much greenhouse gas as the average European," said Trittin.

 

[Makromizer]

Originally posted by: chcarnage
Germany holds elections in three weeks and Schroeder has made good experiences with America-criticism during the last election campaign (he was strictly against German involvment in Iraq).

I doubt his strategy will save his bacon a second time, though. Calm down and wait until the end of September.

Well, but it wasn't exactly Schroeder. Of course, it was one of his ministers and you could say that these government dudes are all the same. But this guy has some political views close to a left wing radical and isn't liked that much by germans, he's also a member of the green party, unlike Schroeder who is a social democrat.
And yes, his comments are absolutely sensless at this time, even if there is a connection between these hurricanes and global warming (no one really knows), this is neither the right time nor the right topic to mention it. But as a US/Swiss resident that lives in Germany for more than 9 years, I can say, that, while most people were in fact against the invasion of Iraq, they don't support his point of view right now, at least not the people I know.

 

[desy]

2.5 times?
That Krout is full of gas
Germany 10.15 per 1000 people
Belguim 12.06 per 1000 people
Czech 12.11 per 1000 people
Luxembourg 17.97 per 1000 people
US of A 19.48 per 1000 people

Numbers

 

[Makromizer]

Originally posted by: desy
2.5 times?
That Krout is full of gas
Germany 10.15 per 1000 people
Belguim 12.06 per 1000 people
Czech 12.11 per 1000 people
Luxembourg 17.97 per 1000 people
US of A 19.48 per 1000 people

Numbers

Well, you would have to take all european nations into consideration and weight them by their population. France for example only has 5.99 per 1000 people and about 55 Mil inhabitants. Don't know whether the ratio of 2.5 is true or not, but you don't proove him wrong.

 

[Queasy]

This post pretty much blows a hole through the "global warming is causing hurricanes" scare brigade.