Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Weather Reports Are Missing the Story
The floodwaters are rising, swamping cities, breaching levees. Tens of thousands are displaced. Many are dead. No, I am not talking about Hurricane Katrina, but about the Midwest United States. As the floodwaters head south along the Mississippi, devastating communities one after another, the media are overflowing with televised images of the destruction.
While the TV meteorologists document "extreme weather" with their increasingly sophisticated toolbox, from Doppler radar to 3-D animated maps, the two words rarely uttered are its cause: global warming. I asked former Energy Department official Joseph Romm, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, about the disconnect:
"Part of the reason is that the people who write about global warming for most newspapers and TV are not the same people as those who tend to cover weather. In general, the media is covering this as all sort of unconnected events, just regular weather maybe gone a little wacky. But, in fact, the scientific community has predicted for more than two decades now that as we pour more heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the planet will heat up, and that would redistribute water. If you heat up the planet ... you evaporate more water, and areas that are wetter will tend to see more intense rainfall and deluges and earlier snowmelts, and all that will lead to flooding. So what we're seeing is exactly what scientists have been telling us would happen because of human emissions."
Perry Beeman is an award-winning investigative reporter for The Des Moines Register, and former president of the Society of Environmental Journalists. From his flood-racked city of Des Moines, he told me: "Not even a few weeks before this all happened, we were in the middle of doing a climate-change series that's going to run over the year. We had two-page graphic talking about the different things that would happen [in Iowa as a result of climate change] and pointing out ... that you would expect more torrential rains. What has happened here is consistent with many scientists' view of what global warming will mean in the Midwest."
So if the disasters that follow one another, from hurricanes to tornadoes to flooding, are consistent with global warming, why aren't the networks, the weather reporters, making the link? Dr. Heidi Cullen, a climate expert on The Weather Channel, created a stir in late 2006 when she wrote in her Weather Channel blog: "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS [American Meteorological Society] shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming."
As reporters stood in waist-high water in the flooded downtowns of major American cities, President George Bush basked in the sunlight in Washington, D.C., urging Congress to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling and on oil shale drilling, and to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. While regular people are getting hit in the wallet at the gas pump, paying now more than $4 per gallon for gasoline, the oil, coal and gas industries are reaping huge rewards, and applying pressure to open up protected spaces for resource extraction.
One of the candidates to replace Bush has a solution. When I asked Ralph Nader about global warming this week, he said: "We've got to have a national mission of converting our economy, and the example for the world is solar energy, 4 billion years of supply. It is environmentally benign, decentralized, makes us energy-independent and replaces the ExxonMobil/Peabody Coal/uranium complex. That is why we have got to go for economic, political, health and safety reasons."
Nader understands how the levers of power and influence operate in Washington, but also how flooding can devastate a community. He grew up in Winsted, Conn., where the Mad River and Still River flooded in 1955, where another Nader confronted another Bush. Ralph Nader's mother, Rose, shook the hand of Bush's grandfather, Sen. Prescott Bush, R-Conn., and refused to let go until he agreed to build a dry dam. The dry dam got built, and Winsted hasn't flooded since. A half-century later, our global problems have gotten far worse. Citizen activists need to shake not hands but the system, holding to account those with power and influence, from politicians to the personalities who report the weather on TV.
Denis Moynihan assisted on today's column.
Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 650 stations in North America.
© 2008 Amy Goodman
62 Comments so far
Show AllLook out for the "shock therapy" that will be included in the rebuilding requirements.
Sigh, I'm getting so tired of hearing Carbon Dioxide and "Global Warming" being blamed for everything that goes wrong. Where's the mention of the unmaintained-by-the-government levees breaking from the rains? Where is the mention of a lack of proper planning and aid by whatever is left of FEMA?
No, all we hear is "It's the Global Warming, stupid," and our minds are supposed to shut down. It's the latest phrase to silence opposition. Any truth is lost in bandwagon fallacies.
Today's headline from AP:
Climate research cut to save fuel
I am glad to read a column that reminds us that global warming is probably connected to the flooding in Iowa. Humans really do have to start thinking systemically.
I am disappointed that Ms. Goodman has chosen to turn to Ralph Nader for column ideas. Ms. Goodman writes that she asked Ralph Nader what he thinks. I don't really care what Ralph Nader thinks. I would like to know what Senator Obama thinks or Senator McCain. Why didn't Ms. Goodman ask them?
Ms. Goodman almost makes it sound like the quote she chose to use from Mr. Nader represents unique thinking. A whole lot of public leaders think that we have to convert our economy, shift our reliance on oil. Nader is not really a leader on global warming, far from it, but she manipulatively makes it sound, in the choices she made as she wrote this column, as if he is. She's spinning Nader.
I hate the vignette Ms. Nader chose, the one with Nader's mom. I bet Denis Moynihan came up with that doing research for her: is Moynihan your summer intern?! I guess being obnoxious in public is something Nader got from his mom?
Goodman, the way you structured this piece, you present Nader's ideas as being unique when, in fact, Nader is parroting, playing catch up. He has never been close to the cutting edge on environmental issues. And then you turn around and parrot him.
This piece reads, ultimately, like Nader propaganda, at least to me. Call me old fashioned but I expect 'journalists' to be objective. Ms. Goodman seems to have a Nader agenda here.
An ad for Nader! Amy I've had doubts, but you've shown your true colors. I hope their paying you well...
A comedian once said it right: sell ExxonMobil the sun, and we'll have solar powered everything by the morning.
yeah but ExxonMobil is nothing but a construct (false or not). ExxonMobil is NOT alive. That is the problem that will ultimately come to haunt the corporation. The corporation is NOT alive. End of story.
really, the corporation is not alive --- this to me seems to be the key to seeing thru the clouds distracting so many and the crazy false harmony that preys upon suffering of innocence and has now for far too long.....
there is better music and we all sense it. even kp and especially the big admiral who is the captain of the sea.....
Amy's interview with Nader a couple days ago was a half hour of logical analysis, straight talk, self-evident moral principles, and integrity that never insults the intelligence of the listener.
In contrast, Obama insults my intelligence every time he opens his mouth. He can take his fucking 'change" and shove it up his ass.
If Nader got a tiny mount of the coverage that these completely unprincipled scumbag politicians get from the corporate media, Nader would be a shoo-in for president. Why the deliberate campaign against such an intelligent and principled man?
The fact that this article does not reference the opinions of John McCain and Barak Obama reflects more a realisation that they will likely lie and do as they please following the election. If you check the popular media, you rarely (read never) see anyone covering Ralph Nader, but you can't open a paper without being deluged (even here in Canada) about some infantile factoid that Barak or John have done. Somehow very few substantial articles appear.
Then you get the attacks on people that cover Nader, Treefitz provides a perfect example, where an article that presents a valid point of view gets a singular focus of criticism when it uses a single source of information. In a single dose of invective, we have the ideas of Ralph Nader, which are acknowledged to be popular and common, even if not originally his, attacked because they represent that same popular desire and what seems to be a good focus article is reduced to a propoganda document simply because it does not meet an obscure criteria from a reader.
Just my two cents.
Galifray and TreeFitz-
It's so sad to see our conservative friends clinging tight to their big energy monopoly sponsored scientists and media. And when an independent journalist who's not on the monopolies payroll comes along, such as Amy Goodman, you continue to cover your ears and sing "la la la la la la.."
It's sad because I thought that at least some of my conservative republican acquaitances had some level of education and critical thinking ability. But over the past several years you folks have proven yourself morally and intellectually incapable of providing any form of leadership that benefits this nation.
It is really sad... rightwinger radio talk show hosts blame global warming on sunflares and such. Claims like these coming from college drop out texan radio show hosts are downright pathetic and laughable. Yet- most repubs quite willingly regurgitate any soundbite thrust upon them- as long is it doesn't contain more then 8 words. And to make a bad matter worse- you guys have the leadership helm as we speak- yet you continue to sink the ship.
As to asking Obama what he thinks should be done about global warming? Well some of us who read up on these things already know the answer- so we'll share it with you conservative friends who can't seem to find the links. Obama is sponsored by GE/Westinghouse. Notice the glowing coverage of Obama by NBC network, which is ofcourse owned by... if you can't guess it let me fill in the blank for you... GE/Westinghouse. Therefore, Obama's position will be definied and outlined by... ok here's your second chance to guess.... give it a try.... GE/Westinghouse. Nuclear power is built by.... ok third times a charm guys.... I know you can do it (ok not really, I take that back).... GE/Westinghouse.
Funny how often someone writes a piece with some very good ideas and informaton and the responses contain criticism about what's not included. So Amy Goodman writes an article about how the corporate media doesn't address climate change in their reporting and gives an example of a person who does have a focus on the issue.
Suddenly all the negative naysayers come crawling out of the woodwork to announce that she didn't mention levees or infrastructure. She didn't report on what McCain or Obama have to say about global warming.
Hey! The article wasn't about infrastructure or levees. This is another issue entirely! The article wasn't about what Obama or McCain think, and given that there's been precious little focus on global weather from either of them, why bother?
So just in case anyone missed the point, the thesis of the essay is that the corporate media have ignored global warming as a factor in the bizarre weather patterns that have been nailing the world for several years. As a kind of subtext, one suggestion for addressing global warming was proposed.
And isn't it interesting how Christians can believe without any proof whatsoever that there's a benign, omnipotent, omniscient being who spoke through humans thousands of years ago to write his word in ancient languages only to be translated perfectly into English so modern human beings can be enlightened to the will of god, but those same people refuse to believe in global warming because "there's not enough proof."
The complexity and rationalization of the human mind is incredible.
I think all people of faith are at least
a tad insane. Was talking to my neighbor
the other day. He is a pastor painted an
evangelical hue. Topic was WMDs. He said
Saddam moved them to Syria. I tell him
Jesus was an insurgent at war with Roman
imperialism.
It's too bad that global warming doesn't come suddenly and hit us like running full speed into a brick wall. Because this country really needs a wake up call about the issues that REALLY matter, like the survivability of future generations after the global warming is in full swing. Well, maybe the economy is going to oblige. I hope so.
With all the bad news, here and abroad, I had forgotten about Nader. It makes me sad that Amy Goodman uses him as her "go to" guy for her column. We should all be worknig for Obama, working hard despite our skepticism, unless, of course, we think this country can withstand four more years of what we have now.
A couple of things. Although Amy did do an interview with Ralph Nader -- I'm surprise by the apparent fluff piece components. DN! many other radical/progressive outlets have been selling Nader as the all knowing Messiah since Clinton '96. Just as I don't think Obama is Jesus (and thankfully, neither does Obama) I don't think that Nader is going to part the Ohio River or turn Poland Spring into Patrone either.
As to why she didn't ask the two major (read: only 'real') candidates in the race? Obama is probably avoiding Amy Goodman b/c she's fodder for the right and she's frankly quite nasty to Dems she feels are sell outs, whether they deserve it or not. (read: Bill Clinton) And a majority of DN! die hards think that most Dems are sellouts anyway. Why put up with Amy Goodman's gun blazing journalism and scare off moderates just to assure some hippy votes that are pretty much yours anyway? Its not like Pacifica membership is going to vote or McCain instead.
Not for nothing, but Obama's walking a tight rope to get elected -- the kind of balancing acts he's doing aren't even afterthoughts to mathematically irrelevant non-players like Nader, Kuicinich or McKinney. Nader can promise us the moon b/c nobody cares what he thinks since virtually no one's going to vote for him.
Obama is a left-moderate Black guy being derailed as the Jay-z loving, latte sipping, ivy league Anti-Christ whose gonna have Louis Farrakhan running the department of education and the ISO rewriting the tax code. He's already getting rode hard by FOX News for giving his wife a pound after clinching the needed delegates, something most of my friends and family do on a regularly basis. Does he need DN! grief right now? Not flames, simply playing devil's advocate.
As for McCain, why? McCain has nothing to gain from Democracy Now! interview except 40 minutes of skinny Jewish woman shrilling him at every turn. And with McCain's temper, I don't want to see him pull a Latrell Sprewell on Amy Goodman. His Bush-selected backers don't give a damn about climate change. Half of his voting base believes that Global Warming is a myth and the only people who would listen to a McCain/Goodman interview aren't going to vote for this old windbag anyway. Why bother?
All the CFR media dote on their pawns, the CFR owned Obama and CFR owned McCain, who're no different really. Both have ties to former Enron members, and covert energy policies. So, an independent journalist speaks to an independent candidate, giving Nader minor mention, concerning a real issue and she's criminalized in the court of illiterates' opinion.
No, the oil and warfare corporation owned news will not speak of global warming, but no surprise there.
Thank you Ms. Goodman for prostrating yourself by bringing up real issues and true thinkers.
Let us also remember Albert Einstein, who saw the ills of coal and petroleum burning early on in last century(!), winning the Nobel Prize in physics for his work with the photo-electric cell.
Amy Goodman is not turning to Ralph Nader for column ideas.
It's no wonder that in this age of corporate media when the pundits remove the substance from all talk on issues that Amy Goodman chooses to cite Nader who has the most comprehensive stances in this election on the issues.
Obama and McCain's stances on issues are far less defined and for that reason Nader is a welcome voice in this election.
Progressives and liberals should take what Nader says and use it to defeat him. That's right---Take what he says and go to Obama. Tell Obama that we should do this for global warming. Or, we should do this to take care of energy independence. And so on.
Pull him to the left and end his increasing desire to censor himself and move to the Right as the media beats and batters his image with slanderous rhetoric on how he is a radical Muslim, as McCain spouts bad ideas on how to solve America's problems, and as the corporations and special interest lobbies like AIPAC turn him into a good candidate for our nation's next panderer-in-chief.
And a significant problem is that the historic floodplains & wetlands have been built upon & developed, so the Army Corps of Engineers built levees - essentially mounds of dirt - along the length of the river to protect the development. Which only concentrates the volume of water into a smaller stream, which means more height (higher flood crest).
Then you add the lack of maintenance under the "Government Is Evil" mantra of Republicans for the last 40 years and changing weather patterns (whether it is global warming or whether humans are responsible or not, we can see a least a temporary change if not a permanent one). Which leads to disaster for the people who live there .... and for the croplands which not only the USA but the world depends on. We are thoroughly screwed ....
"decentralized, makes us energy-independent and replaces the ExxonMobil/Peabody Coal/uranium complex".
That is true wisdom that most of you didn't let register in your so called modern educated brains.
Pathetic...
Please consider the concept of "Economic Re-localization".
It is the path away from centralized totalaterian control by making transportation, energy production, food, construction with local resources, and other natural resource utilization transition to community based. The consolidation of weath and power will continue untill you start to wake up and listen to people like Ralph and Amy...
Start with yourself and your family, lead by example; install wind, solar, geothermal or micro hydro as is appropriate to your location. Retro your house, or build a new one that requires little or no outside centralized energy, water or waste systems. Install a composting toilet and compost all food waste. Grow your own food even if it requires the investment in a small green house, buy sell and trade locally. Consider the barter system to undermine the old currency based materialistic economic system and avoid 1099s and taxes. Maintain your technology and connection to the world. Become debt free and stay that way!
Begin to think of ways you and your loved ones can survive on your own in the worst case senerios and take control od your destiny... the government and politics are a waste of time and energy as they now exsist. Save yourself because no one else will.
On a basic level, it is very hard to look at any single event and directly connect it to global warming. Logically, about the only way you could do that would be if it was an event that had never happened before and could only happen after global warming. And I'm not talking about 'we had a half inch of rain more than we'd ever had before sort of thing'.
Instead, you only see the connections when you take a step back. Any single storm could have happened whether or not there was global warming. But, when you step back and look at the bigger trends of frequency and strength of storms over time, then you see the effects of global warming.
So, if I was the editor on a story about say the floods in Iowa, I'd be very reluctant to use that piece to talk about global warming. And if a writer did put in a bunch of stuff about global warming, I'd probably strike it out.
On the other hand, I probably would tell that writer or a different one to take a step back and look at the bigger picture and see what should be said about this.
I think it would probably be factually misleading to connect a single storm to global warming. And I'm old fashioned enough to think that news should be factual. But a new organization needs to do some big-picture and connect the dots type of reporting that should bring this to their readers\viewers in another way.
Well, for one thing, Mr. Nader was just a guest on her show this week. Its no surprise that something they may have talked about might have grown into an article she wrote.
Is this just a complaint from the Dems that Nader should be blacked out from all coverage and they are mad at Ms. Goodman for breaking that rule?
Is talking about global warming and its effects off-limits because Mr. Nader chooses to talk about it? Does this make it an invalid topic for everyone else?
If you have a conversation with an intelligent man, is it a surprise that this leads to thoughts and topics that someone would pursue. To me, that's normal.
In general, I love watching the Dems react to the name Nader. I should probably come out here every once in awhile and type it just to see the reaction. It always does such a great job of revealing the Dems true colors ... which usually aren't very pretty to see.
"If Nader got a tiny mount of the coverage that these completely unprincipled scumbag politicians get from the corporate media, Nader would be a shoo-in for president. Why the deliberate campaign against such an intelligent and principled man?"
Do you realize you answered your own question in this paragraph? The only thing the Dems care about it their quest to grab power. Anything that gets in their way is the enemy and must be attacked. Thus, when you say that if Mr. Nader were to get the coverage and exposure that the corporate-bought candidates get then he'd be a shoe-in, you've thus answered the question as to why there is such a deliberate campaign against him.
The Dems know they can't win an honest debate.
More connect the dots on Obama and nuclear power. The largest operator of nuke plants in the country was an early and big supporter of the Obama campaign.
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair07042007.html
"The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator."
Even better is the story of the way Obama reacted to an incident at an Exelon plant near Chicago. Obama's constituents were upset with the lack of notice they got during the event. Obama pretended to be on their side. But what he really did was back Exelon (probably after shaking them down for more contributions by pretending to back his citizens).
Read the whole story at ...
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/3538/The_Obama_Glow
Its very enlightening about how Mr. Obama works.
"Despite his initial push to advance the legislation, Obama's office eventually rewrote the bill, producing a version that was palatable to Exelon and the rest of the nuclear industry. "Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Illinois, where a nuclear leak had polluted local ground water. "The teeth were just taken out of it.""
I don't like veering off the topic of this story, but the I am compelled to respond to those that attack Nader:
Please listen to, or read, the Nader interview here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/18/ralph_nader_on_barack_obama_it
Can you find anyone who elucidates our immediate objectives more clearly?
We will not get there following Obama, he is a pro-capitalist, anti-worker, neoliberal. As far as McCain, he is of course vile, but if we indeed need to tear down the edifice so we can build a new one, a McCain presidency will be useful in doing that.
Samson,
Thanks for pointing that out. Even the very moderate pro-worker populist John Edwards got media-blackballed for the same reason.
Of course you are correct, I an fully aware why Nader is blacked out of the corporate media.
Someday the American worker will realize that they have been deceived, cheated, bamboozled, swindled, screwed, blued and tattooed, and the whole notion of "democracy" USAn-style is only for chumps.
A capitalist business-elite run the USA - and increasingly most of western so-called democracies - from from the white house or Parliament house to city hall. They have nothing but contempt for the wage-earning working man. You see, they believe that their money makes them smarter than you and me - in the same way the feudal lords and Kings believed that their connections to the Pope ordained them to rule the working stiff. I genuinely believe that the west is moving into a sort of neo-fuedalism except with capitalist wealth replacing divine rights.
If the worker some day realizes this, things will hopefully get interesting. I long for that day, and hope that when it comes, there is a successor to Nader leading the Revolution, because there is a fine line between a turn to revolutionary progress and descent to fascism.
TurnoffyourTV June 19th, 2008 12:32 pm
"An ad for Nader! Amy I've had doubts, but you've shown your true colors. I hope their paying you well…"
You didn't chuck that TV out your window like I told you, did you? Its no good just turning it off. Too much temptation to turn it back on. It's called Tvocohism and you need Tvocohism Anonymous quick.
I live in the Mississippi flood zone and there are no simple answers. Today floods broke through and flooded thousands of more acres. People still live in the flood plain because they cannot afford to live anywhere else. Farmers farm there because it is extremely productive land.
The enormity of this flood is still not understood by those outside the flood location. The flood waters have reached inland in places that have never flooded in the past. The losses are incredible. The cuts in the land are very deep and sand is being deposited on prime farm land so deep that it is not economic to reclaim the land. Flood debris is everywhere. Propane tanks are floating around dangerously.
Cemeteries are inundated and in some cases bones and bodies are washing around. Snakes, frogs, and toads are thick on higher ground. Farm buildings are washing away and farm animals have either drown or running loose. People are helping sandbag with only their clothes, no money, and no place to go. FEMA is slow in setting up assistance and for the most part there is no assistance. Thousands of families are displaced and many have nowhere to go and nothing to eat. It has rained here three out of four days for the last two months and it is raining now. The bottom land roads to and from these areas are flooded. It's a long drive to the next major highway capable of moving people out. Gas is high and people don't have money. They will be sleeping in their cars or on the ground. Even some of the interconnecting roads leading to the next highway have low spots that are flooded and passage is not possible. Emergencies cannot always be addressed because of flooded roads. The high ground is mostly on the Missouri side of the river where it is peaking and Illinois farmland across the river is inundated. This is a historic flood and because of global warming it may become common place. This same area is effected by the New Madrid earthquake fault and experienced a 6.3 earthquake recently. Structures on deep soil are easily damaged. The rocky soil that is more resistant to earthquakes is fifty miles south. More storms and tornadoes have visited this area this year than any previous year. Hog farms and grain farms, especially corn, are heavily represented here. These are primarily agricultural communities heavily populated by Americans of German descent who immigrated here in the 1830's. Many of these farms have been in their families ever since. These lands were originally populated by the Sac and Fox Nations. Fortunately most of their burial grounds exist on higher ground. Bald eagles in the thousands winter here along the river. This is a very rural place with expansive lowland farms and high river hills. Now most is covered in water.
Citizenblog I haven't turned off my Radio or Computer yet. And you can download Democracy Now on your computer, or the tubes, as you may think of them...
McCain admitted the other day he has no idea how computers work. A President for the 19th century!
TURN OFF YOUR TV: I got rid of mine 18 months ago, but the point is, the vast majority of our neighbors ARE tuned into the false media and therefore just because we abort its toxic messages doesn't mean their impact won't touch us through this thing called: shared national destiny.
DOOM & GLOOM: I hope you and your lands will be safe. Having endured 7 hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004-2006, and watched Katrina spin by from the VERY vulnerable near-sea level Florida Keys, I DO believe the weather is acting as teacher these days. Too many Americans are inured to the suffering their "leaders" have directly caused to the people of Iraq and elsewhere. Sadly, the only way many learn empathy--how to give a damn about one's fellow man/woman--is by dealing with sorrow and loss.
We are at the END of the Piscean Age, the invisible cusp-doorway that undulates in a time-based transition to that of the far more humane, Aquarius. Pisces is a water sign, and it's all about compassion. Jesus, its avatar was the FISHER of men, born from a "virgin" (Virgo is Pisces' necessary polarity) mother, etc. The symbolism is profound and apt.
LEE ANN: Good posting. I would only differ in suggesting that the Old Testament, frequently used by the cult that sees war as amenable with God's will, is hardly the depiction of a BENIGN ominipotent force. It is, as I rhapsody... MARS' rules!
PS: Remember when Hansen from NASA was told to shut the f--k up about global warming? The Weather Channel I believe is related to the U.S. military, some of its chief correspondents use military planes to fly INTO hurricanes. No doubt there's been a gag order, if not overt, than covert... similar to the way media has been infused with the opinions of pro-war generals, etc. Sometimes mind control results from the politics of excluded alternatives...
Ok, so now the floods are caused by global warming. They idiots over on the erosion article say the floods are caused by the evil, selfish Iowans who built flood protection systems.
You know, floods have been taking place since the beginning of time. That's why there are flood plains. Flood plains prove that rivers have been flooding and depositing silt.
Why is it that the people posting on Common Dreams who are not even affected by these floods see a need to criticize those who are?
Of course, it may be something as simply as the ENSO influence. El Nino and La Nina can both cause weather anomalies. Lest we forget, they had flooding in 1993 that was attributed to El Nino. The current floods are perhaps the result of the recent La Nina.
http://www.environmentwriter.org/resources/bg/mississippi.htm
http://www.sage.wisc.edu/pubs/articles/M-Z/Twine/Twine2005JClim.pdf
Given the complexity of weather and climate, and the uncertainty of what causes what, even among scientists, the politicizing of global warming by Nader and Goodman suggests they are part of the conspiracy. Controlled dissidents on the left who have earned trust by attacking the right -within limits (ie no 9/11 talk)- when they are in power. So when power shifts to the left (Obama), the trust they have earned allows them to assist the PTB to execute the other elements of their plan (eg. carbon caps and trading). A never ending cycle of left vs right.
Certainly Global Warming, to the extent it will come, man made or not, will mean more water. Thats good, right? The problem is in infrastructure. If you buy into the inevitability of global warming, invest in the infrastructure to prevent flooding. We no longer invest in infrastructure, and they blame it on the fact we do not have enough tax money. LOL.
Money is being created at 16% per year (M3), but it's being created to speculate in SIV's, ETF's, MBS, CDO, CDS, hedge funds, derivatives, commodity futures, etc. Who creates the money and determines what it is used for, the bankers in the Federal Reserve System (not the Federal Reserve Banks), and their owners who speculate in the above. The Fed is no longer creating money. They do not buy US Treasuries any longer. Instead, they accept the crap from their owners like JPM and give them money that they create. Our government must borrow money from China, who simply creates more of their own money to buy USD from their manufacturers to loan us. Their manufacturers got the money of course from consumers who borrowed money to buy stuff made in China, stuff that used to be made in the US, and were purchased from wages paid to those who made the stuff. Or from OPEC nations who have tons of USD as a result of high oil prices that are 2-3 times what they should be.
If our government created it's own money and lent it at low interest rates, payable only after the infrastructure got built and was earning revenue, then infrastructure would get built. But the bankers would not make much money, and JFK and Lincoln were examples of what happens when you go there.
Levees and such only postpones the inevitable and makes it worse when it eventually does happen. The river is going to "win", if you are going to fight it with engineering. One day the river going by New Orleans is going to change course and there will no longer be a purpose for that city.
I thnk perhaps that settlements around the river need to be less peremanent somehow.
Could it be because there is no link between global warming and the current rash of bad weather? Even the IPCC has acknowledged the fact that the temperature is not rising (they say global warming MAY be back in 2015). So that theory is pretty much blown...
and the last time that I checked, severe weather is caused by the clash of cold air and warm air... less cold air, less severe weather...
But Amy is with Common Dreams on this one in just reporting one side of the issue... very disappointing on both accounts.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html
Thank you Amy for another excellent article.
I watch Democracy Now almost every morning for news and perspective I can get nowhere else. Voices of clarity, sanity and dignity.
I can hold two or more thoughts in my one brain.
Are we, led by our government and co-led by our corporations, causing global warming? Sure thing. Personally, I roll the dice and predict a 25 foot hurricane storm surge coming up the Potomic River in 2009 and leaving high water marks on Abe Lincoln's shins and on the touchable moon rock in the Air and Space Museum, with a flooded Metro.
Is the Army Corps of Engineers a fundamentally corrupt agency? Maybe that too. The government certainly allowed massive flood plain development, impeding the flooded river's flow. Then the corps put levees and dikes everywhere, further impeding the river. Then the floods came and the government's total lack of planning, as usual, became evident. We focus a bit too much on whether the Corps built badly designed dikes made out of illegally cheapened materials, which is also an issue.
Should the fact that Ralph Nader says something consign that idea to be thrown out and ignored? No, not at all. Someone has to say it and neither major candidate is going to utter an off-topic word for the next 4.5 months. Why not hear something fairly honest for a change?
Well, doggies! ya'll are mad!
Damn! No wonder this country is a mess. Hatin' on Amy, the reporter Michael Moore called a national treasure?
Try putting your heart into play instead of all that hate.
Get up & do somethin'!!
Obama '08!
It would have been nice if Nader had worked on building support these last 4-8 yrs for his glorious positions.
He seems to disappear between photo-ops, but what he says is great.
Amy-
You are wonderful!!! But get with the program--and ask the one candidate who possibly will effectively address Global Warming, BARACK OBAMA!!!!!! Remember, Al Gore has endorsed him, and he will be a big campaign adviser. So let's go where the hope and possibility are!!!!! Please! Now!
lisa3210peace: Actually, I saw Nader in 2004, and he did talk about these issues. Energy in particular. That he is not mentioned in the MSM is not exactly his fault. He packed an entire auditorium to overflowing. Do your homework before criticising him for what little attention he does get.
I'll admit I like Obama and think he is a good speaker, but I do not think policies advocating nuclear, and "clean" coal are viable. He is a corporate bought man, clearly. Pay attention to what is not on the table: energy conservation, a major shift in our way of life so that we do not require so much energy, the fact the the US uses 25% of the world's energy, but comprises only 5% of the world's population.
Obama is no savior. Many people here are doing the exact same thing with Obama that happened with Clinton. People thought: anyone but Bush (the first). Yet Clinton turned out to be the most popular republican in my lifetime. He eliminated welfare for the poor, he eliminated regulation of the telecommunications industry, he pushed Nafta. After he left office, he mocked the environmental movement, laughingly saying, and I'm parapharasing here: well, you people didn't keep the heat on me, and so you lost. So much for the republican-lite party.
I find the attacks against Nader particularly lame. If Obama wants my vote, he knows which direction to go. If he thinks he is the only alternative for progressives, he may find himself losing to McCain. And he will have nobody to blame but himself.
And geo522, stop already.
The temperature IS rising. Just go look at the data at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Unlike the propaganda your links point to, this is from NASA and it is very up to date. This is FACT, not opinion.
"Climate Chaos" is better framing than "Global Warming."
Just because the atmospheric CO2 is going straight up--383 ppm vs nothing above 280 ppm for previous 400,000 years--and we know that it traps radiant energy, we shouldn't take any action on these storms because there is no proof that they are not just a random events. When we all begin to fry........that is just going to be a random event also--a result of the fact that we were smart enough to get all that fossilized carbon back in- to the atmosphere but too damn stupid to get it together to address the situation. Just another accident of evolution! ...but then these science deniers don't believe in evolution either. come to think of it neither do i given what we are seeing.
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org
Samson
You are correct. You can not connect any one storm/flood with GW. We would need to see a trend in the data.
MiMiCcS- "Certainly Global Warming, to the extent it will come, man made or not, will mean more water. Thats good, right?"
Sorry MiMiCcS but you are wrong. The results of global warming are more extreme weather events. So... take the given climate of an area... and amplify it. If you have rain... then yes you will have more rain. But if you have an area that normally experiences survivable droughts... well now you're going to have more extreme less survivable droughts. If you have ice... you are going to have more extreme ice. If you have heat waves... you are going to have longer and more intense heat waves. That's one set of results which are predicted by and shown to be currently happening by very well studied physical evidence.
Now we're not done yet- because that above model is only the 'mild... less then deadly... better case scenario' model.
We know that the above is happening and will continue to happen. What we don't know..is if we are being overly optimistic with the above scenario. Because there are other.... more worst case models that take it one step, two steps, three steps, and ten steps further.
These progressively worst case scenarios are talking about things like a re-ordering of the earths existing climate zones. That means we could see things like tropical zones shifting northwards... to the deserts of California and Africa and such... yes dropping more rain... but in a desert which gives you flash flooding during the rainy season... and increased desertification in the dry season, not tropical jungles in Mojave. And the deserts themselves will expand northwards... converting what are currently the bread basket agricultural areas into dust bowls. Temperate forest areas will move northwards... leaving less snow fall in areas that depend on the snow level for water. Essentially- we could end up with climate zones that have no natural relationship to the flora fauna of those areas.. throwing things completely out of whack and basically making many many more deserts then any of us can handle.
Now add to that the human equation. Currently food production sort of meets the needs of the earths population (although it's very unequally distributed). But if these worst case scenarios are the actual path of global warming... we are not going to be able to move the farming regions northwards to the degree required to meet global food demand. We could very well be hit with massive food and resource shortages.
And what happens when you have massive food and resource shortages? Well- we have wars. Desperate wars of survival. No big deal if you live in a superpower, right? Wrong. Because these days when things get desperate we aren't talking about sticks and stones, spears and guns. We are talking about nuclear war... for survival. And no one is going to survive a nuclear war.
Now do you see the enormity of the problem? Whatever handfull of humans manage to survive and someday make a new society will look back upon our era of technology that failed to account for the environment... and they will ask themselves.. "Why couldn't those industrialized people just stop driving and stop buying big box store junk driven halfway around the world? They must have known what was happening... so why did they continue all the earth shattering?" That future world will be very different... and much more dismal then the world we enjoy today.
For the sake of your kids... take this stuff seriously. Not so many years ago these scientists were being blown out of the water by corporate sponsored rhetoric. Even the scientists themselves kept their calculations on the conservative side and discarded the the bigger, faster numbers- because of the relentless corporate rhetoric. We thought maybe... MAYBE..... we would see the beginning signs of the global warming models some 50-80 years down the road... maybe in our life times. Well suddenly it looks like we don't have to wait so long.... cause global warming is gettin' hot!!
Infact, I halfway think that Bush and Gang are implicitly acknowledging the truth and danger of global warming by trying to get a head start with their asinine resource grab.
Again, not flame, but anyone who thinks that letting Nader in the debates will reveal the 'truth' to the American people and he would win need to lay off the pipe. This is the nation that vote for Bush the Lesser, not once, but TWICE!! (forget about Florida '00 and Ohio '04, Bush still got close to 50% of votes.) This is a nation where many rank Ronald Reagan as one of the best presidents since FDR. This is still a nation where people openly admit they won't vote for Hillary or Obama because one is a woman and the other is Black.
Is there a turn around? Sure, which is why Obama is where he is and conservatives are looking else where instead of goose stepping with McCain. But as long a Reverend Wright and lapel pins make traction or politicians have to kiss Isreali-Zionist ass to get elected, we've got a lot of work before Nader or McKinney presidency are little more than hookah-induced fantasies at the local folk music festival.
Doom & Gloom, your comment really describes the tragic situation going on presently. Please take care. The loss of the farm's food production will affect all of us.
Fakedemocracy, good post. "They must have known what was happening ... why continue all the earth shattering?"
Happy Summer Solstice.
It's depressing to see all the Pavlovian reactions here every time a candidate's name is even mentioned. The CommonDreamers who derail any discussion they can into arguments about which rich person should be our Dear Leader are part of the problem. At least the climate change deniers are addressing the topic!
"DOOM & GLOOM: I hope you and your lands will be safe. Having endured 7 hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004-2006, and watched Katrina spin by from the VERY vulnerable near-sea level Florida Keys, I DO believe the weather is acting as teacher these days. Too many Americans are inured to the suffering their "leaders" have directly caused to the people of Iraq and elsewhere. Sadly, the only way many learn empathy–how to give a damn about one's fellow man/woman–is by dealing with sorrow and loss."
I live in the river hills above the flooding so I am fine. Most of my land is in central Missouri away from the flooding. Because of the continuous rains the hay this year has grown above the fence posts and it has been too wet to cut and bale. Those who have tried have failed because the hay molded. Plan B is to have the seed cut from the tops of the hay in July. Then later in the year cut the rest. I have just fenced my land from my neighbors so there are no cattle on the land. It is about 75% woods and 25% pasture. I would like to convert the pasture to natural prairie to better hold the carbon in the soil. I had hoped that the Farm Bill would have provided some assistance but it did not. Most of the money in the Farm Bill continues to go to subsidize large corporate farms and the conservation funds require that the landowner live on the farm which I do not. That makes no sense at all. Conservation funds should be available to anyone who has the vision to participate. Again, Washington is twisted. So it will just have to be what it is for now.
The saying goes that corn will make it if it is "knee high by the 4th of July." Once the river water covers it, the corn dies. So massive amounts of corn will be lost this year. In addition because of the wet weather about 25% of the fields could not be planted even out of the flood plain, so corn prices will rise. So the economies of the small towns and farms along the Mississippi will be badly depressed this year. The people will remain however because the river is in their blood.