This is what the dog and I were confronted with on the walk in the park this morning.
Six people are dead; electricity is still cut in many areas of the country; the railways on various lines are suspended.
The media are calling it ‘a hurricane’, which it is not, of course, as hurricanes are circular weather systems with an eye in the middle. This one was a storm with hurricane force winds.
No matter what the definition is, it was a destructive and scary beast.
These pictures are taken of a park just to south of the centre of Warsaw where we live. The dog was amazed by all the carnage – more sticks to play with! But it was much worse in other areas of Poland.
Of course, a freak act of nature like this will be endlessly chewed on by the doom mongers, the (fallen) tree hugging environmentalists, as a sign of the coming global warming apocalypse. These storms do happen. I remember a particularly spectacular one smashing into Britain in 1988 (?).
But that won’t stop them claiming that storms like this and the very warm winter we are having (hooray!) is ‘nature’s revenge’ on us horrible humans.
Let them fantasize about inanimate objects taking ‘revenge’ – the rest of us will just get on with clearing up the mess.
Photos taken by Traczka.
15 comments:
Well done, beatroot. Just as on other occasions, your ignorance does not stop you from contradicting meticulous research.
Even G.W. Bush and his minions no longer deny that humans are causing global warming. That makes you what?
Mr Fink Nottle – don’t be soooo impolite! Where are your manners!
You said:
Even G.W. Bush and his minions no longer deny that humans are causing global warming. That makes you what?
What do you mean: That makes you what? A Bushie? :-/.
And what’s all this ‘your ignorance does not stop you from contradicting meticulous research.” Crap? Try and stick to the ideas….
But the first sentence is the real problem. Where in my post does it say that humans are NOT causing some global warming?
I would be surprised with all the amazing human activity going on at the moment if there wasn’t some effect on the environment.
The post, however, was about how some greenies always jump to the conclusion that every extreme weather event is caused by global warming!
They don’t know that, and neither do you.
And if you want to debate something, then I enjoy our debates. But I do not enjoy personal comments. It distracts from the debate.
OK?
But the first sentence is the real problem. Where in my post does it say that humans are NOT causing some global warming?
Fine. I reread and I still think that the implication of your post is that you don't believe in global warming.
Sorry for my comment being too personal. I meant it more as a comment on methodology, but I agree that it came out most impolite.
Thank you. I think you are just the kind of person I want in the comment boxes here. Intelligent but someone who has opposing views about something, knows more than me about something, sometimes, and we can get in to fierce but productive arguments.
That’s why I do this, and that’s what readers like.
So I think you are far too intelligent to need to resort to personal stuff.
Beetroot, in all fairness to gussie, the term “tree-hugging environmentalist” DOES typically signal that you associate your position on environmental issues with the folks who believe that we should be drilling for oil wherever we damn please, deforestation is really not a big deal and the global warming is just a part of the vast communist/Zionist conspiracy to take our land, rape our women and steal all that yummie Starbucks coffee from us. The only acceptable use of that term I can think of is…. to describe sex with my ex-wife ;) (that would make me “environmentalist”…right?)
I don't know any tree-huggin' hippies that actually say things like "it's nature's revenge" and actually mean it. Though I would agree that it's probably a sign of things to come.
Yes, these storms do (have) happen. The difference is that they will probably happen more frequently and in areas that are not accustomed to them.
The "Patient Earth" article on IHT is a great commentary on how, despite the overwhelming nature of the various problems we and our planet face, we - as individuals - can make a difference but we have to recognize that the difference will be very small unless joined by millions or billions of the rest of us. There are no simple fixes any more but that doesn't mean we have to shrug our sholders.
I actually do think people consider ‘nature’ as the new ‘God’. Environmentalism is filling (as Rushdie once said) “The religious shaped hole in our heads” in the west.” In fact that kid of sentiment is becoming almost mainstream
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4201060.stm
My position on this is: Climate change will hit the poorest, least developed, countries hardest. But the ‘solution’ from western middle class environmentalist tree huggers is to limit consumption in the west and limit economic development generally – particularly in the developing world, where they are being lectured by western Greens about ‘sustainable development’.
The better a nation is developed the better it will cope with environmental change. Holland, for instance, was created out of the sea and has managed quite well because it is a fully developed economy.
The Green ‘sustainable development’ is a recipe for disaster for developing countries. We need more and faster development, not less.
Greetings from windswept Małopolskie! I survived the storm, but not without damage to my farm. The strong winds knocked off 20 'dachówka' (cement shingles) from my barn, and another 15 from my shed. This kept me quite busy on a tall ladder for about 3 hours on Friday afternoon. At least I rewarded myself with some tasty Lech beers after the repairs were made. Besides that, the area around my farm was littered with tree branches. The house held out without incurring any damage at all. Pure luck! It was the strongest wind storm I've experienced in my 4 1/2 years living in Poland.
I don't see sustainable development and "more and faster" development as being mutually exclusive. Admittedly there are some industries or areas of the economy where sustainable or green practices/materials do not yet exist. And if those practices or materials don't exist but something must be done ...then I say do it. If there are sustainable practices or materials available, then use them. I've never understood why people think being green means suffering. There are new and healthy industries helping people be green but not suffer for it. I'm not just talking about solar panels but LPG, energy-efficient bulbs, new types of windows, the vast number of recycling projects (anything, it seems, can be turned into something else these days) and so on.
In fact, being green is sometimes cheaper than not - look at the use of LPG! It's better, enivronmentally, than petrol ...and cheaper.
Since we're linking to the BBC ...Marks and Spencer is spending 200 million pounds on becoming "carbon neutral". That money spent will not be a "recipe for disaster". Rather it will be creating jobs and such. The big question is: will their prices rise as a result? Probably not says Stuart Rose, the chief of M&S. As the article says ...if it's the same price (or cheaper!) and "green" ...people will buy it. If it's more expensive ...well they probably won't buy it. Being inexpensive but green is the holy grail but I think it's achievable because it's the result of efficient practices.
Glad the farm was not too badly hit, Eugene. It sounds at its worst a little west and north from you. But I am glad the worst was at night (in Warsaw at least). I slept through it all!
Brad: what you are pointing too (LPG etc) are technological advances. I would point out nuclear and hydrogen in there too.
But I don’t think the current obsession of ‘green consumerism’ (carbon footprints blah blah) is really the way we should be thinking about things. Adaption to climate change is better than the (UK) George Monbiot, hair shirt approach (quote: “flying over the Atlantic is the equivalent of child abuse)…and the Green Imperialists lecturing countries like China and India won’t help either. We should be thinking about trying to control the weather too. Nature and ‘natural’ is not best. Hurricanes are ‘natural’ and all they do is kill people. Why not developing ‘Hurricane busting’ technology?
Beatroot: Technological advances that allow for LPG, efficient insulation, waste-into-biodiesel, nuclear power and so on, are, for me, just as green as moving to the mountains and not shaving your beard any more.
"Why not develop 'hurricane busting' technology?" Go for it. When scientists can "bust" a hurricane they will have undoubtedly learned a great, great deal about the nature (hah!) of weather and climate prediction. I think I would caution against being too quick to mess with the weather - equating it a bit to the US's approach to forest fire management in the early 20th century. It took them quite awhile to figure out why the redwoods weren't making little redwoods any more ...until someone realized that forest fires were key to that process. Whoops.
I am, ultimately, for people being as green as they want to be. ...As opposed to people being as green as someone else wants them to be.
That's just about right. Thing is, the Greens are the New Puritans...and puritans always want others to wear the hair chirt too...and that's bad for emerging economies like POland.
That's a shame. Really. Proves us once and for all how tiny we are against nature's agressive will. And in that note, may the americans injured by the last Hurricane storms be at peace and good health.
have a peek herehe said my review heremore info here imp sourcesee this site
read the full info here y6j70q1c73 replica gucci replica bags wholesale mumbai replica bags wholesale in divisoria Recommended Site u1w82k9o62 replica bags near me replica bags paypal accepted replica gucci handbags s8i37s5h59 replica bags bangkok
Post a Comment