Philippine catastrophe

[westwall]

Low? Low?!?! WTF is wrong with you people? Was it wrong to institute fire prevention technologies into building codes or was that some sort of abuse of the memories of the victims? Was it wrong to add all those safety requirements to automobiles, or was that just a callous political ploy? Was it immoral for the US government to set up and empower the FDA, the FAA, the NTSB or the OSHA?

If you want to get on someone's case for giving insufficient regard to the tragedy, the loss of life and limb, the billions in property damage - talk to the people who push the denial of any connection between warming and weather (and the dupes who buy into those arguments on primarily political grounds), not because of any flaw in the science, but because it threatens their bottom line: the fossil fuel industries.

AGW Death worshiping cult LIVES for these weather related deaths

So, Frank, do you have any answers to my questions? Is it WRONG to look for ways to prevent death and injury?

Not at all. That is an admirable goal.

The problems arise when non-scientific totalitarians like you try and politicize a natural occurrence like typhoons which Skooks so ably showed are common as dirt in that area of the world.

Instead of enacting onerous laws that KILL people in other parts of the world, and do nothing but enrich those who have engineered the passage of those laws, building enhanced structures in typhoon prone areas and educating the people to not build in typhoon destruction zones would probably be MORE effective. Don't you think?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Look, if a lot of Philipinos have to die so denialists can guzzle fossil fuels, then that's a price that denialists are willing to have someone else pay.

That is the pattern with denialists. They always want someone else to pay for their own actions. But I figure if I go poking around savagely enough, I might actually awaken a conscience in one of 'em.

Soon as I can sending you some negrep

 

[westwall]

The whole climate change argument, imo, is just ludicrous. It's like people needing to believe in God and Heaven in order to behave decently. Why do we need to believe one way or the other in climate change to treat the planet decently? It's our planet, it's our home, we should treat it decently. Why do you need to do it out of fear? Why not do it because it is simply the right thing to do?

CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas. It's production lights our lights, heats and cools our homes and carries us and all our goods up and down the world's roadways. It is very easy to tell ones self that it is harmless, that humans couldn't possibly produce enough to affect the whole world.

I do not find the argument that we need to reduce GHG emissions to minimize global warming "ludicrous". Neither do I believe you've adequately justified yourself. Please explain why you think ephemeral aesthetics OUGHT to be enough and why you think it ludicrous to not be satisfied with what the world has done so far in this regard.

I never said it was ludicrous to minimize global warming. Where the fuck did you get that? You are reading with a single minded tunel vision. In fact, you are so absorbed in your political stance, you cannot see the forest for the trees. I am saying we should treat the planet well, which means caring about the environment, in all ways. We should do it because it is our home, not because we are afraid of global warming. Jesus. You are a perfect example of people who forget about the obvious, the natural view of life, because you are so embroiled in a political position.

Yes, he and his fellow clones are all the same. No sceptic disagrees with your POV. None. We disagree with draconian laws based on faulty and pseudo-scientific conclusions. We WANT the world to be taken care of. The problems arise when the politicians figure out that a carbon tax is yet another line of revenue for them.

To date there is zero empirical evidence that CO2 is causing a problem. All of the alarmists evidence is based purely on computer models. The observations of the world are quite different from what they say. They STEAL huge quantities of money that could be used to heal serious pollution problems on this planet but over and over it becomes very clear the alarmists don't give a shit about the planet. They care about political power pure and simple.

It is US who are fighting against windmills that kill millions of birds and bats every year. THEY are the people who want to massacre our avian friends and puree our fish friends with their underwater turbines.

Realize one thing......alternative energy production has killed more critters in ONE YEAR than all of the critters that big oil has killed since it was begun.

And they want permission to kill more.....

 

[Abraham3]

Can you explain your claim of five landfalls?

Again, from YOUR article:

MANILA (UPDATE, 3 p.m.) - Typhoon Yolanda, the strongest hurricane of the year, slightly weakened on its fifth landfall in Concepcion, Iloilo Friday noon, the state weather bureau said.

In an interview, Pagasa weather forecaster Joey Figuracion said Yolanda’s wind strength dropped from 235 kph Friday morning to 200 kph in the afternoon; its gustiness also from 275 kph to 230 kph.

He said the typhoon weakened when it crashed against the land mass of Visayas islands even as it accelerated toward Capiz province.

The first landfall was around 4:40 a.m. at Guiuan in Eastern Samar, the second around 7 a.m. at Dulag-Tolosa in Leyte, the third at Daanbantayan in Cebu, and the fourth at Bantayan Island, also in Cebu.

Figuracion said that as of 1 p.m., the eye of the typhoon was located over vicinity of Cuartero, Capiz (11.3°N, 122.8°E) and continued to move fast west northwest at 40 kph.

 

[Esmeralda]

At least now CNN is using the word 'battering' instead of 'devastating' in their headline. See, they do listen to me.

 

[Abraham3]

Try again little troll.

I would, but I'm quite certain you're beyond any help I have to offer.

 

[skookerasbil]

The whole climate change argument, imo, is just ludicrous. It's like people needing to believe in God and Heaven in order to behave decently. Why do we need to believe one way or the other in climate change to treat the planet decently? It's our planet, it's our home, we should treat it decently. Why do you need to do it out of fear? Why not do it because it is simply the right thing to do?

Heres the thing.........

In 2012, the UN estimate for eliminating fossil fuels and going to all green energy was 76 trillion dollars. Basically, it settles the whole argument, like it or not. Believe it or not, the thought processing of some doesn't enable them to get the economics of it which will ALWAYS be the deciding factor.

If you even have the political IQ of a small soap dish, you can figure out that given the choices of todays renewables, its simply not going to happen in our lifetimes......100% certainty. Now.....if government gets the fuck out of the way ( not likely ), innovation in energy production technology could change the math but until then.....and I'm not even kidding......fossil fuels will dominate because the pols will never take a fringe view and saddle the constituents with mega-coast electricity and fuel costs. In some countries, doing so will get your ass assassinated. In most countries, your political life is over.......and these people don't tend to really embrace getting their asses voted out.


Look at any poll which has to do with opening your wallet to help solve the "problem".........its a fucking joke its so one-sided. In places like Germany where they have pushed the envelope with this shit over the past 2 decades, now the reverse is happening. Same with Spain.......they got royally fucked. In the US, Cap and Trade is dead as a doornail.......officially got kicked in the balls in 2009 and will get no recessitation efforts either. Its just the way it is despite the green fantasies to the contrary some of which can be seen daily in here.

 

[Esmeralda]

CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas. It's production lights our lights, heats and cools our homes and carries us and all our goods up and down the world's roadways. It is very easy to tell ones self that it is harmless, that humans couldn't possibly produce enough to affect the whole world.

I do not find the argument that we need to reduce GHG emissions to minimize global warming "ludicrous". Neither do I believe you've adequately justified yourself. Please explain why you think ephemeral aesthetics OUGHT to be enough and why you think it ludicrous to not be satisfied with what the world has done so far in this regard.

I never said it was ludicrous to minimize global warming. Where the fuck did you get that? You are reading with a single minded tunel vision. In fact, you are so absorbed in your political stance, you cannot see the forest for the trees. I am saying we should treat the planet well, which means caring about the environment, in all ways. We should do it because it is our home, not because we are afraid of global warming. Jesus. You are a perfect example of people who forget about the obvious, the natural view of life, because you are so embroiled in a political position.

Yes, he and his fellow clones are all the same. No sceptic disagrees with your POV. None. We disagree with draconian laws based on faulty and pseudo-scientific conclusions. We WANT the world to be taken care of. The problems arise when the politicians figure out that a carbon tax is yet another line of revenue for them.

To date there is zero empirical evidence that CO2 is causing a problem. All of the alarmists evidence is based purely on computer models. The observations of the world are quite different from what they say. They STEAL huge quantities of money that could be used to heal serious pollution problems on this planet but over and over it becomes very clear the alarmists don't give a shit about the planet. They care about political power pure and simple.

It is US who are fighting against windmills that kill millions of birds and bats every year. THEY are the people who want to massacre our avian friends and puree our fish friends with their underwater turbines.

Realize one thing......alternative energy production has killed more critters in ONE YEAR than all of the critters that big oil has killed since it was begun.

And they want permission to kill more.....

Honestly, I think you guys are just as bad. You are each as bad as the other. Two sides of one coin.

 

[Decus]

Can you explain your claim of five landfalls?

Again, from YOUR article:

MANILA (UPDATE, 3 p.m.) - Typhoon Yolanda, the strongest hurricane of the year, slightly weakened on its fifth landfall in Concepcion, Iloilo Friday noon, the state weather bureau said.

In an interview, Pagasa weather forecaster Joey Figuracion said Yolanda’s wind strength dropped from 235 kph Friday morning to 200 kph in the afternoon; its gustiness also from 275 kph to 230 kph.

He said the typhoon weakened when it crashed against the land mass of Visayas islands even as it accelerated toward Capiz province.

The first landfall was around 4:40 a.m. at Guiuan in Eastern Samar, the second around 7 a.m. at Dulag-Tolosa in Leyte, the third at Daanbantayan in Cebu, and the fourth at Bantayan Island, also in Cebu.

Figuracion said that as of 1 p.m., the eye of the typhoon was located over vicinity of Cuartero, Capiz (11.3°N, 122.8°E) and continued to move fast west northwest at 40 kph.

So you agree that when the Typhon first hit the Philipines in Eastern Samar the wind strength was 235 kilometers?

The article you quoted states that the winds dropped from 235 kph to 200.

You seem to be arguing that it was a category 4 storm. I can agree with that.

 

[Abraham3]

The whole climate change argument, imo, is just ludicrous. It's like people needing to believe in God and Heaven in order to behave decently. Why do we need to believe one way or the other in climate change to treat the planet decently? It's our planet, it's our home, we should treat it decently. Why do you need to do it out of fear? Why not do it because it is simply the right thing to do?

CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas. It's production lights our lights, heats and cools our homes and carries us and all our goods up and down the world's roadways. It is very easy to tell ones self that it is harmless, that humans couldn't possibly produce enough to affect the whole world.

I do not find the argument that we need to reduce GHG emissions to minimize global warming "ludicrous". Neither do I believe you've adequately justified yourself. Please explain why you think ephemeral aesthetics OUGHT to be enough and why you think it ludicrous to not be satisfied with what the world has done so far in this regard.

I never said it was ludicrous to minimize global warming. Where the fuck did you get that?

From "The whole climate change argument, imo, is just ludicrous."

You are reading with a single minded tunel vision.

I am simply reading what you wrote. If you're trying to get something across that's more than a little subtle or obscure, I suggest you spend a little more time explaining yourself.

In fact, you are so absorbed in your political stance, you cannot see the forest for the trees.

In what political stance do you believe me to be absorbed?

I am saying we should treat the planet well, which means caring about the environment, in all ways. We should do it because it is our home, not because we are afraid of global warming.

And I am saying that unless one explicitly takes a concern regarding global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, one could easily be convinced we were as green as green could be while still screwing the environment and the next many generations via the emission of otherwise harmless gases.

What does your last line up there actually mean? "We should do it because it is our home"? Please explain what we should and should not do to the Earth because it's our home. And explain why we should reduce or eliminate GHG emissions if we actually had no worry about warming.

Jesus. You are a perfect example of people who forget about the obvious, the natural view of life, because you are so embroiled in a political position.

Whatever your viewpoint might be regarding this discussion, I do not find it the least bit obvious. And I'm still curious as to what political position you believe has me so overwhelmed.

 

[Abraham3]

Can you explain your claim of five landfalls?

Again, from YOUR article:

MANILA (UPDATE, 3 p.m.) - Typhoon Yolanda, the strongest hurricane of the year, slightly weakened on its fifth landfall in Concepcion, Iloilo Friday noon, the state weather bureau said.

In an interview, Pagasa weather forecaster Joey Figuracion said Yolanda’s wind strength dropped from 235 kph Friday morning to 200 kph in the afternoon; its gustiness also from 275 kph to 230 kph.

He said the typhoon weakened when it crashed against the land mass of Visayas islands even as it accelerated toward Capiz province.

The first landfall was around 4:40 a.m. at Guiuan in Eastern Samar, the second around 7 a.m. at Dulag-Tolosa in Leyte, the third at Daanbantayan in Cebu, and the fourth at Bantayan Island, also in Cebu.

Figuracion said that as of 1 p.m., the eye of the typhoon was located over vicinity of Cuartero, Capiz (11.3°N, 122.8°E) and continued to move fast west northwest at 40 kph.

So you agree that when the Typhon first hit the Philipines in Eastern Samar the wind strength was 235 kilometers?

The article you quoted states that the winds dropped from 235 kph to 200.

You seem to be arguing that it was a category 4 storm. I can agree with that.

No. The articles I have been quoting are the links YOU provided. They indicate that the Flipino weather services take longer averages when measuring wind speed and thus come up with lower numbers. By the standard US and otherwise international methodology, winds at first landfall were sustained 195 mph with gusts to 235 mph (314 kph and 378 kph).

Why are you arguing this point? Are you trying to minimize the strength of this storm? If so, you have a couple thousand meteorologists you need to sort out first, cause they're all pretty convinced this may have been the most powerful storm of all time. And I don't think they're all suffering from a weakness in metric conversions.

 

[Decus]

Again, from YOUR article:

MANILA (UPDATE, 3 p.m.) - Typhoon Yolanda, the strongest hurricane of the year, slightly weakened on its fifth landfall in Concepcion, Iloilo Friday noon, the state weather bureau said.

In an interview, Pagasa weather forecaster Joey Figuracion said Yolanda’s wind strength dropped from 235 kph Friday morning to 200 kph in the afternoon; its gustiness also from 275 kph to 230 kph.

He said the typhoon weakened when it crashed against the land mass of Visayas islands even as it accelerated toward Capiz province.

The first landfall was around 4:40 a.m. at Guiuan in Eastern Samar, the second around 7 a.m. at Dulag-Tolosa in Leyte, the third at Daanbantayan in Cebu, and the fourth at Bantayan Island, also in Cebu.

Figuracion said that as of 1 p.m., the eye of the typhoon was located over vicinity of Cuartero, Capiz (11.3°N, 122.8°E) and continued to move fast west northwest at 40 kph.

So you agree that when the Typhon first hit the Philipines in Eastern Samar the wind strength was 235 kilometers?

The article you quoted states that the winds dropped from 235 kph to 200.

You seem to be arguing that it was a category 4 storm. I can agree with that.

No. The articles I have been quoting are the links YOU provided. They indicate that the Flipino weather services take longer averages when measuring wind speed and thus come up with lower numbers. By the standard US and otherwise international methodology, winds at first landfall were sustained 195 mph with gusts to 235 mph (314 kph and 378 kph).

Why are you arguing this point? Are you trying to minimize the strength of this storm? If so, you have a couple thousand meteorologists you need to sort out first, cause they're all pretty convinced this may have been the most powerful storm of all time. And I don't think they're all suffering from a weakness in metric conversions.

The point of longer measurements is accuracy. All local and regional reporting speaks to the more accurate measurements and the fact that the winds were no where near 195 mph. Sustained winds at first landfall were just under the category 5 definition at some 155 mph.

Why do you have a problem with accurate measurements?

 

[flacaltenn]

And now we know the uselessness of yours. If you're looking for a prayer group, you're in the wrong forum.

Maybe if you wish real hard, some day you'll become an actual human being.







....but I wouldn't bet on it...

Im not a religious man. But in times like these, logic and rational choice guide me to the group of human beings that consistently display the discipline and true compassion that needs to be expressed. Not in the mood to be lectured or mocked. Or allowing others to be mocked.

 

[flacaltenn]

Low? Low?!?! WTF is wrong with you people? Was it wrong to institute fire prevention technologies into building codes or was that some sort of abuse of the memories of the victims? Was it wrong to add all those safety requirements to automobiles, or was that just a callous political ploy? Was it immoral for the US government to set up and empower the FDA, the FAA, the NTSB or the OSHA?

If you want to get on someone's case for giving insufficient regard to the tragedy, the loss of life and limb, the billions in property damage - talk to the people who push the denial of any connection between warming and weather (and the dupes who buy into those arguments on primarily political grounds), not because of any flaw in the science, but because it threatens their bottom line: the fossil fuel industries.

AGW Death worshiping cult LIVES for these weather related deaths

So, Frank, do you have any answers to my questions? Is it WRONG to look for ways to prevent death and injury?

Maybe you zealots could wait until the dead are buried and the suffering is relieved before you attempt to assign blame or DEMAND virgin sacrifices to your political agenda?

Or are just too anxious to put that superior atheist intellect to work on punishing the guilty?

 

[Decus]

"As the storm approached landfall, the U.S. Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center in Pearl Harbor estimated its maximum sustained winds at 190 to 195 mph, with gusts to 230 mph. If verified, those would be the most powerful on record for any storm that has made landfall."

Typhoon Haiyan makes landfall in Philippines - The Washington Post

Try to understand that the 195 mph number was an ESTIMATE that needs to be VERIFIED. The local measurements DID NOT VERIFY.......the....wait for it.........ESTIMATION.

If you want proof of global warming you'll have to look elsewhere.

 

[Abraham3]

So you agree that when the Typhon first hit the Philipines in Eastern Samar the wind strength was 235 kilometers?

The article you quoted states that the winds dropped from 235 kph to 200.

You seem to be arguing that it was a category 4 storm. I can agree with that.

No. The articles I have been quoting are the links YOU provided. They indicate that the Flipino weather services take longer averages when measuring wind speed and thus come up with lower numbers. By the standard US and otherwise international methodology, winds at first landfall were sustained 195 mph with gusts to 235 mph (314 kph and 378 kph).

Why are you arguing this point? Are you trying to minimize the strength of this storm? If so, you have a couple thousand meteorologists you need to sort out first, cause they're all pretty convinced this may have been the most powerful storm of all time. And I don't think they're all suffering from a weakness in metric conversions.

The point of longer measurements is accuracy. All local and regional reporting speaks to the more accurate measurements and the fact that the winds were no where near 195 mph. Sustained winds at first landfall were just under the category 5 definition at some 155 mph.

Why do you have a problem with accurate measurements?

You don't even know the meaning of the word. The length of time over which the wind speed is averaged HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on how accurate the measurement might be. It is simply a different measurement. We could average it over a day or a week or a month or a year. Yes, the windspeed in that storm was only 7 knots (averaged over a year).

The Safr-Simpson scale specifies how wind speed (both sustained and gusts) are measured. You cannot measure by a different technique and then apply Safr-Simpson to it.

I'm done talking to you about this. You're a waste of time.

And why is no one getting on HIS case for failing to give a thought to the victims? Nothing political in THAT miss, was there.

 

[Decus]

No. The articles I have been quoting are the links YOU provided. They indicate that the Flipino weather services take longer averages when measuring wind speed and thus come up with lower numbers. By the standard US and otherwise international methodology, winds at first landfall were sustained 195 mph with gusts to 235 mph (314 kph and 378 kph).

Why are you arguing this point? Are you trying to minimize the strength of this storm? If so, you have a couple thousand meteorologists you need to sort out first, cause they're all pretty convinced this may have been the most powerful storm of all time. And I don't think they're all suffering from a weakness in metric conversions.

The point of longer measurements is accuracy. All local and regional reporting speaks to the more accurate measurements and the fact that the winds were no where near 195 mph. Sustained winds at first landfall were just under the category 5 definition at some 155 mph.

Why do you have a problem with accurate measurements?

You don't even know the meaning of the word. The length of time over which the wind speed is averaged HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on how accurate the measurement might be. It is simply a different measurement. We could average it over a day or a week or a month or a year. Yes, the windspeed in that storm was only 7 knots (averaged over a year).

The Safr-Simpson scale specifies how wind speed (both sustained and gusts) are measured. You cannot measure by a different technique and then apply Safr-Simpson to it.

I'm done talking to you about this. You're a waste of time.

And why is no one getting on HIS case for failing to give a thought to the victims? Nothing political in THAT miss, was there.

You are delusional. What a waste of time.

 

[Abraham3]

Low? Low?!?! WTF is wrong with you people? Was it wrong to institute fire prevention technologies into building codes or was that some sort of abuse of the memories of the victims? Was it wrong to add all those safety requirements to automobiles, or was that just a callous political ploy? Was it immoral for the US government to set up and empower the FDA, the FAA, the NTSB or the OSHA?

If you want to get on someone's case for giving insufficient regard to the tragedy, the loss of life and limb, the billions in property damage - talk to the people who push the denial of any connection between warming and weather (and the dupes who buy into those arguments on primarily political grounds), not because of any flaw in the science, but because it threatens their bottom line: the fossil fuel industries.

Maybe you zealots could wait until the dead are buried and the suffering is relieved before you attempt to assign blame or DEMAND virgin sacrifices to your political agenda?

Or are just too anxious to put that superior atheist intellect to work on punishing the guilty?

Did your god send that storm? Did it kill only the wicked and spare the righteous? Maybe god was hunting the Muslims, eh? Shove the religion.

Wondering how we could prevent this sort of storm from becoming the norm is an activity that could save lives. Moaning and wringing your hands doesn't do squat. If you want to do some good for the world, give up your contrarian, anti-science soapboxing and work towards something that might actually accomplish a worthwhile goal.

 

[Esmeralda]

You guys have turned a simple discussion thread about the effects of the storm on the Philipines into a global warming debate. How stupid is that?

 

[Decus]

Low? Low?!?! WTF is wrong with you people? Was it wrong to institute fire prevention technologies into building codes or was that some sort of abuse of the memories of the victims? Was it wrong to add all those safety requirements to automobiles, or was that just a callous political ploy? Was it immoral for the US government to set up and empower the FDA, the FAA, the NTSB or the OSHA?

If you want to get on someone's case for giving insufficient regard to the tragedy, the loss of life and limb, the billions in property damage - talk to the people who push the denial of any connection between warming and weather (and the dupes who buy into those arguments on primarily political grounds), not because of any flaw in the science, but because it threatens their bottom line: the fossil fuel industries.

Maybe you zealots could wait until the dead are buried and the suffering is relieved before you attempt to assign blame or DEMAND virgin sacrifices to your political agenda?

Or are just too anxious to put that superior atheist intellect to work on punishing the guilty?

Did your god send that storm? Did it kill only the wicked and spare the righteous? Maybe god was hunting the Muslims, eh? Shove the religion.

Wondering how we could prevent this sort of storm from becoming the norm is an activity that could save lives. Moaning and wringing your hands doesn't do squat. If you want to do some good for the world, give up your contrarian, anti-science soapboxing and work towards something that might actually accomplish a worthwhile goal.

Please, no need to give me further proof of just how loony you are. Seriously, I'm convinced.