When terrorists killed 3,000 people on 9/11, they blamed the United States. When the Boxer Day tsunami took more than a hundred thousand lives, they blamed the United States. When Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, they blamed the United States. Stock answers are correct with about the same frequency as a broken clock. Events don't conform to ideological scripts. America has the right enemies.

Who are "they"? Seems like a bit of an over-generalisation.

I think the U.S. killed off the dinosaurs as well, didn't we? Dirty lizards.

Bruce---

You know, "them."

-- Brian

I know a few "Thems". You'll have to be a bit more specific. ;)

The links in this snippet are not to the usual suspects, but a rather motley group of Muslims, actresses, and conspiracy theorists. I doubt any of them have much in common. Many people on the militia-right also subscribe to similar theories, so it's not just the hate-America left.

New Orleans isn't the most wholesome place in the world. Who knows, maybe the flood had some intelligent design behind it.

-- obi juan

Are you related to Jerry Falwell by any chance? ;)

Although I think Falwell and Robertson get a bit carried away, I don't think it is a silly religious question to ponder if God still does all that Old Testament retribution stuff.

as it is sensible to ponder if he/she/it ever existed in the first place, to be able to to the retribution gig.

There is a saying as old as the Cosmos: $hit happpens.

I just want to know when the Sri Lankans, the Thais, the Indians, and others will come to our aid.

Maybe this is the whole point of Flynn's article here, but how do emissions and greenhouse gases influence or cause hurricanes to be more likely to occur? I can understand the logic that emissions soaking up the atmosphere and causing the ozone layer to decrease its ability to block the Sun's harmful rays, therefore making it more likely that polar ice caps will melt, and cause floods, but what does this have anything to do with the freaking hurricane?

Is there just a default "Blame America" button that gets pushed on European leader's backs everytime a natural disaster occurs....like there always has to be some logical explanation for why it occurred? These types of things have been happening for centuries, how is it getting worse?

Is there anyone out there who actually knows about these environmental issues more than the averae joe like me, that isn't a Communist and can shed some light on some of this stuff?

Maybe we'll get back some of the tsunami relief money we sent.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I kill me.

Oh, and as I recall, that was somehow America's (read Bush's) fault just like this last natural disaster.

-- Christopher

The greenhouse gasses don't soak up the atmosphere, they are absobed by the atmosphere (being pedantic sorry). The Ozone layer has nothing to do with the warming of the atmosphere, CO2 (and other gases) increase termal retention. Ozone Layer and Greenhouse are two separate phenomena.

Also, at the end of an ice age, sea level change is largely caused by melting ice, but currently it's more a function of thermal expansion.

As something fluid gets warmer, it's energy level gets higher and some of that translates to kinetic energy. In fluid bodies, this can be seen as faster currents in water (or a rolling boil in your saucepan), and in an atmosphere this can mean stronger winds. The bushfires in Australia are a good example of the latter; they can generate their own wind.

The situation how it relates to the current natural disaster in the US is very complex, and lets face it; nobody has had time to do a study on the phenomena.

Hi Bruce. Nice to meet you. Thanks for the info. Would you consider me an antiscientific know-nothing for dismissing any connection between the hurricane and all the climate change predictions? Not only can I just not get myself to believe this is caused by manmade anything (hurricanes, even bad ones, just happen, right?), it seems to be an outright, very hasty, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Oh, sorry--maybe since the forecasted massive climate changes haven't happened yet, it's a pre hoc ergo propter hoc (?).

The greens do themselves a lot of credibility damage when they act like chicken little psychics.

ASDF you're so cynical, you remind me of....myself
I live in MO and went to Home Depot yesterday, the price of lumber has already gone up, and it didnt even rain here! I thought price-gouging was illegal? Some poor guy trying to make a buck for bags of ice and he gets arrested, a huge money making conglomerate does it and its ok( ie. Home Depot, Lowes, Texaco, Shell, etc....) And of course Im sure we will get no help from those scumbag 3rd world countries over there, because America is evil!

Skeptic, I believe the line of reasoning is that climate change equals more extreme weather patterns, so the hurricane wasn't caused by greenhouse emissions, just made a lot worse by them.

Obi Juan, yeah, I get that, I just don't believe it. That is, I think bad hurricanes just happen sometimes. Look, what would count as evidence here? If there were real historical evidence from over the last several thousand years that showed that hurricanes significantly got more extreme in the last 50 years or so, and if they had a good causal explanation for how the greenhouse emissions worsened hurricanes specifically, that would count as strong evidence for me. That's really hard evidence to get, so they want a lower standard. Well, insofar as they have a lower standard for evidence, I give them a lower degree of credibility. They seem to want absolute credibility while admitting that they can't get the kind of evidence that would make their case realy strong. Greens try to make up in shrillness what they lack in evidence, I think.

When lefties in Germany tell us that our hurricane was made disasterous by car emissions, I think of horoscopes in the newspaper, which are validated as prophesies because anything will count as fulfillment.

Skeptic's reference to horoscopes is a good one. I recall my geosciences prof. in college spending a semester having us run all the computer programs and lab tests that are supposed to demonstrate global warming. At the end of it all, at which point all of us could tell that there existed no solid evidence to support the theory of manmade global warming, the prof. acknowledged the situation honestly and said, "look, we really don't know this for sure, but isn't it better to be safe rather than sorry?"

I think anyone should find such a view a reasonable on. This is generally why I wear a seat belt for example. But there are major problems with this view as well. It can morph from taking prudent care (like finding alternative energy sources, technology to make burning fuel cleaner, etc.) into histrionics and power "shakedown" politics like referenced in Flynn's post. It also can be used to force really prohibitive and expensive legislation---Kyoto Protocol---that just isn't justified by the lack of evidence.

The greens (surely none of them are pro-Iraq War, right?) should think of it this way. If they aren't convinced by the Condi mushroom cloud argument to invade: "Look, we really can't be certain about whether or not Hussein has active links to Al Qaeda or WMD's that he plans to attack us with, but isn't it better to be safe rather than sorry?" then why should we be convinced by the same claims made by envronmentalists?

Hey, Led Zeppelin warned a long time ago that this could happen:
"If it keeps on rainin' the levee's gonna break
If it keeps on rainin' the levee's gonna break
When the levee breaks, mama you got to move...."

That last bit is a very astute observation Brian. That would be an example in an argument that would sent most libs into mental vapor lock.

Of course, their standard response for all unwinnable arguments is: Bush lied.

Skeptic, I get you. Something like the gambler's fallacy right?

Hitchens is a prowar lefty. I'm sure there are others, maybe even greens.

Hey, just heard that Bono and Geldof will be doing a "Live Louisiana" concert to benefit hurricane relief.

Dan, it might seem to some to be the wrong time to post an important pamphlet. But to me I think it's the right time.

You see, I want to donate funds to help those in need from the Katrina. But I already have via federal taxes.

So, I donated despite it not being the federal governments money to give.

Where art thou Crocket?

Stay tuned.

2 Points: 1) The Cost of Kyoto varies by nation (Australia could make quite a buck out of it if people used their brains). 2) Clarification: I've only suggested that I wouldn't be surprised if there was a link with global warming, but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion until someone had done a study on the specific phenomena.

There seemed to be a little confusion as to what I said.

Guys, we need to differentiate between the phenomenon of natural global warming as in the Earth's natural cycle of cooling and heating, which is undeniable, and the supposed impact of human activity ON the this supposed warming cycle, and more particularly the DEGREE of impact on the whatever might be the current cycle.

From everything I have been able to read, the total impact of enacting 100% of Kyoto Accords would by the treaty's supporters own data would be about one-tenth of one degree of temperature reduction. This is like crowing about the assault weapons ban decreasing gun crime when "assault" weapons constituted the same one-tenth of one percent of gun violence.

The bottom line seems to be that no one on the Kyoto side seems to understand the concept of a cost-benefit study. And what is particularly galling is the two largest populations with two of the fastest growing economies, India and China, are not evern covered. Not to mention no one on the Kyoto side has yet been able why, if the world is warming, Antarctica is growing colder.

One last factoid: several prominent climatologists stated earlier today that there exists a demonstrable cycle of hurricane activity. And whereas from about 1970-1994 we were a low activity cycle, since 19994, we have been experiencing a cycle in which hurricane activity is greatly increased, as has indeed happened in the past.

Best to all.

asdf, you said it about having prepaid your Katrina relief.

another note: At least one police officer has been shot critically by an armed looter in New Orleans. It's going to be incredibly ugly and dangerous in the ruins of New Orleans - people dying from petty violence against each other, from contaminated water and food. People rioting for water.

"Not to mention no one on the Kyoto side has yet been able why, if the world is warming, Antarctica is growing colder."

Just because the world on average gets warmer, doesn't mean that part of it can't get cooler. Same deal with humidty and glaciation; an explanation would be nice, but it's not necessary to validate the existence of human influence on global warming.

Anyway, I'm not going to get drawn into emotive speculation about what did or didn't influence the hurricane. I prefer research.

Sounds good Bruce, I agree with you. I think that was one the original point of Flynn's post as well.

--Brian

Yep, I gathered that was the crux of things. Still dunno who "they" are though ;)

I don't see the big deal with the "they" thing, Bruce. "They" is anybody who blamed the US for 9-11, the tsunami, or the hurricane or the deaths that occurred in those events. Such people exist. Because they exist, Flynn can point to them when you ask for a referent to the 'they.'

No generalization occurred in the post, let alone a hasty generalization. The "they" fallacy occurs primarily when there aren't specific people in significant numbers who fit the characterization offered of the "they." Not the case here.

I disagree. It's absolutely the case; insufficient demonstration of affiliation (affiliation is implicit it "they"). Insufficient demonstration of "blaming the US" to boot. The leap from criticising the president or a political party to crticism of the nation is a non sequitur.

typical name calling of the left, never dealing with any issues. didja hear what bush is saying the war is about today? yep, oil: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/

have fun calling the other side names and not accomplishing anything but a few more book sales.

Barry23: It doesn't sound like Bush gave oil as a reason for the WAR but a reason for "continuing" in Iraq. Big difference, which you elided.

Bruce: Is affiliation implicit in "they"? I.e., you are accusing Flynn of pointing to a group larger than the group that those who blamed the US for 9-11, the tsunami, or the hurricane or the deaths that occurred in those events. What affiliation is he implying? His links go to leftists and to a Islamic terrorist-advocate who have actually done the things he's accusing them of. He didn't blame an large amorphous group or "affiliation." Rather, the affiliation-tendancy is so obvious he doesn't have to. He just needs to point to factual cases, and then your mind can do the "generalizing" itself. Look: there is, in fact, a blame-America tendancy among the hard left and among Islamic terrorist-advocates. Pointing that out isn't illicit, is it? Using a pronoun about people that exist isn't illicit either. You miss the point of the "they" fallacy. It occurs only when the pronouns substitutes for people who don't exist or aren't identifiable or when it is used to include people who don't actually do what the "they" is accused of. That's not happenning here.

Bruce: PS. I like your blog.

Skeptic: Thanks for the kind words. I aim to please, but it won't stop me from "shooting straight".

On the issue of aid for the US by other nations; http://smh.com.au/news/world/australia-donates-10m/2005/09/02/1125302728830.html

I'd personally like it to be a bit more (while we don't have as much $ as the US, we could afford more) and I expect this won't be the end of the aid. I don't think Australians would be offended if the US asked for more help. That's what friends are for.

Bruce

Who ever said That our world was meant to last forever? every living thing dies. stars die.
People who want to "save the planet" can't even save themselves.