[meelk]

I'm going to be nice here because its still early, and our national news is probably still concentrating on the distaster so much that they may not have mentioned Euro aid to the areas hit by Katrina.
I'm wondering if Euros are donating *anything* to help, or are we getting the big *F YOU* from the european community? Mind you, I dont expect money of course, but there are short term needs to be addressed that could be helpful.

Food in MREs
Technical individuals to help with repairs or logistical operations
Rescue Personnel
Small numbers of military to help maintain order at places like hospitals or shelters
etc.
Minor things that add up to a lot

I ask this because bluntly, America sends a LOT of aid in form of food, medicine, personnel, etc all over the world all the time. Regardless of what people tend to bitch about in terms of our political/military moves around the world WE HELP in dire situations.

Now is the time for Europe to put up or shut up.


(if you see this thread twice, like I do, its because the server freaked out on me - wierd)

[andreas_g4]

[von Wrangell]

[budster101]

We'll take care of our own as usual. Don't expect squat from anyone.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally Posted by budster101

We'll take care of our own as usual. Don't expect squat from anyone.

Unless it's something as big as 9/11, this is how it typically goes. As a nation, we help others because we are in a position that we can and it's the human thing to do. As bad as Katrina was, it's something we can handle on our own, I'm sure.

[Hugi]

I hope other nations offer their help! What's happening down there is a tragedy.

[von Wrangell]

Has the US asked for help?

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Has the US asked for help?

Yes, meelk is our official Help Needed Secretary, a position created by Bush Jr. after 9/11

[budster101]

Ok, the estimated damage is at 30,000,000,000 dollars.

That's 30 Billion.

[OreoCookie]

Did you notice that there was a big flood in Europe just now? Estimated damages are around 320 million Euro in Switzerland and 250 million Euro in Austria.

But also, I'm not aware of any request for assistance, I'm sure will meet your requests.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by meelk

I'm wondering if Euros are donating *anything* to help, or are we getting the big *F YOU* from the european community?

Maybe this gives us an idea???

GERMAN PAPERS: Katrina Should be A Lesson To US on Global Warming

Seems like everything is President Bush's fault. One day after Katrina hammered the Gulf Coast, German commentators are laying into the US for its stubborn attitude to global warming and Kyoto.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally Posted by budster101

Ok, the estimated damage is at 30,000,000,000 dollars.

That's 30 Billion.

Wow, last I'd heard it was at $9 billion. $30 billion will put a big whole in the pockets of insurance companies and the emergency help gov't agencies.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Maybe this gives us an idea???

They are a bag of nuts aren't they.

[analogika]

Wait - you're looking at 30 billion dollars of damage, 80 dead human beings (at last count), and people who DARE to suggest that there might be a way to avoid even worse tragedies of this kind in the future (if it's not too late) are "a bag of nuts (with the obligatory f.-u. smiley)"?

whoa-kay.

[ghporter]

Funny, but when other countries experience a huge disaster, the U.S. volunteers to help before being asked. That's the way we are. A couple of days ago I was wondering when the normal call for help for all the Europeans displaced by floods would hit the papers. I guess that got pushed off the front page by something at home.

And I suppose that if Kyoto had gone into universal effect the day it was agreed upon, it would have had an affect on the potential formation of Europe's recent storms or of Katrina... Yeah, right. Give me a break.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Funny, but when other countries experience a huge disaster, the U.S. volunteers to help before being asked. That's the way we are. A couple of days ago I was wondering when the normal call for help for all the Europeans displaced by floods would hit the papers. I guess that got pushed off the front page by something at home.

What are you saying? There's a point in there, possibly, but it's obscured by stream of consciousness...

Originally Posted by ghporter

And I suppose that if Kyoto had gone into universal effect the day it was agreed upon, it would have had an affect on the potential formation of Europe's recent storms or of Katrina... Yeah, right. Give me a break.

Who the **** ever claimed such a thing?

However, it seems possible that, had the world agreed on and ratified something like the Kyoto protocol fifty or sixty years ago, it might damn well have had an effect on what we're seeing today.

On the off-chance that your grandchildren might be spared FAR worse than what has happened, is your response "what a bag of nuts" also?

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by meelk

Now is the time for Europe to put up or shut up.

Wtf

[SVass]

Somebody diverted a hundred million from levee strengthening to give to Halliburton and a war of choice. (They decided to cut the budget for the Corps of Engineers.) Let them contribute. sam

[Kerrigan]

Analogika, hurricanes have occurred with greater frequency and ferocity long before Katrina. Stronger ones than this have happened before industrialization, and stronger ones will happen again.

The only difference now is that more people live along the coast so more people are harmed. Global warming doesn't even factor into this, it is only a political aside.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Funny, but when other countries experience a huge disaster, the U.S. volunteers to help before being asked. That's the way we are. A couple of days ago I was wondering when the normal call for help for all the Europeans displaced by floods would hit the papers. I guess that got pushed off the front page by something at home.

Haven't heard any offers from the US to help with the floods in Europe yet … not that we needed any in terms of machinery, but still, I haven't heard of any. Ditto for the fires in Portugal (Spain and Germany did help the Portuguese government).

That's the way we are, gimme a break. Also, there's so little flooding in Europe and the States, I think aid should continue to go to the countries which deserve them better.

Originally Posted by ghporter

And I suppose that if Kyoto had gone into universal effect the day it was agreed upon, it would have had an affect on the potential formation of Europe's recent storms or of Katrina... Yeah, right. Give me a break.

So you're saying counter measures to global warming are useless anyway?

Just to give you an update: there are signs indicating that the hole in the ozone layer stopped growing thanks to international efforts.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Analogika, hurricanes have occurred with greater frequency and ferocity long before Katrina. Stronger ones than this have happened before industrialization, and stronger ones will happen again.

The only difference now is that more people live along the coast so more people are harmed. Global warming doesn't even factor into this, it is only a political aside.

It's not the frequency, it's the total energy in those storms.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

Wait - you're looking at 30 billion dollars of damage, 80 dead human beings (at last count), and people who DARE to suggest that there might be a way to avoid even worse tragedies of this kind in the future (if it's not too late) are "a bag of nuts (with the obligatory f.-u. smiley)"?

whoa-kay.

analogika, such things existed before the United States did.

Heck, such things existed before we did.

But sure, it's Bush and America's fault for not signing the Kyoto treaty. Which IS what they are referring to when they speak about a "lesson"

And yes, they are a bag of nuts. Salted.

To use such things for political shilling is disrespectful to those involved.

The people who said such things should be ashamed of themselves.

Originally Posted by ghporter

And I suppose that if Kyoto had gone into universal effect the day it was agreed upon, it would have had an affect on the potential formation of Europe's recent storms or of Katrina... Yeah, right. Give me a break.

Exactly.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The only difference now is that more people live along the coast so more people are harmed. Global warming doesn't even factor into this, it is only a political aside.

You're partly right, as in that hurricanes are cyclical, but in your above statement you're wrong. Hurricanes feed of warm ocean water, the warmer the ocean the more chance of a storm like the one we've just seen.

And ocean temperatures are rising steadily. We're going to see more and more of this.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Analogika, hurricanes have occurred with greater frequency and ferocity long before Katrina. Stronger ones than this have happened before industrialization, and stronger ones will happen again.

The only difference now is that more people live along the coast so more people are harmed. Global warming doesn't even factor into this, it is only a political aside.

Maybe you should read what experts have to say on the matter:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...372176,00.html

Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has studied historical records of hurricanes around the globe, said the answer is yes […]

Emanuel found that as sea temperatures rise, the duration and intensity of hurricanes are going up, too. The reason for the correlation is pretty straightforward: "Hurricanes derive their energy from the evaporation of sea water," Emanuel explained in a phone interview. "When you evaporate water from the ocean you actually transfer heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. A similar effect happens when you come out of the shower in the morning. You feel cold because water is evaporating from your skin, and taking heat from your body. That heat energy doesn't disappear." Instead, it fuels the intensity of hurricanes.

So, as global warming increases, expect hurricanes to get stronger.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

You're partly right, as in that hurricanes are cyclical, but in your above statement you're wrong. Hurricanes feed of warm ocean water, the warmer the ocean the more chance of a storm like the one we've just seen.

And ocean temperatures are rising steadily. We're going to see more and more of this.

Exactly. And studies do show that the total energy of the storms has significantly increased.

[Hugi]

As I said before, I hope other contries offer their help. It's simply the right thing to do in a time of crisis. But the stuff some of you folks are saying. Wow.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Maybe you should read what experts have to say on the matter:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...372176,00.html

Yes and I believe he says this as well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/na...gewanted=print

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing."

The best that global warming pundits can come up with is using models that nobody agrees on to predict a slight change in windspeed 100 years from now. Predicting the future is very dodgy business, I wouldn't put a lot of stock into it.

Whatever the case, there is no link between global warming and the hurricanes of our lifetime.

[sminch]

your source suggesting that this might have something to do with the unsubstantiated and frankly unpatriotic "global warming" is someone called kerry emanuel, eh? he doesn't sound like a real american, just another nut from europe. hell, he's probably french! who'd believe anything he has to say, the bearded, bicycle riding hippie!

now that i've got that off my chest: feel free to shoot me down, but when was the last time the us offered help after a natural disaster in the first world? this is an honest question - i don't know the answer, and maybe it was last week.

i know you guys do lots for third world / developing nations in the area of disaster relief, but so do a lot of other first world countries. to expect smaller first world countries to help out the largest and wealthiest (ie. most able to cope) when a natural disaster hits might be getting a little carried away.

sminch

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin

analogika, such things existed before the United States did.

Heck, such things existed before we did.

Not like this.

Originally Posted by Kevin

But sure, it's Bush and America's fault for not signing the Kyoto treaty. Which IS what they are referring to when they speak about a "lesson"

No they are not. They'd be tremendously stupid to claim such a thing.

What they are saying is that Global Warming is real, measurable, and catastrophic.
What they are saying is that it must be stopped.
What they are saying is that things will be a lot WORSE in fifty years' time than what you are looking at now if nothing is done.


But, Kevin: Even if they *are* wrong, which seems increasingly unlikely, who the **** are you to not give future generations the benefit of the doubt?

-s*

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Yes and I believe he says this as well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/na...gewanted=print

Selective quoting. You left out the first sentence:

In an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.

[Hugi]

We had two days of snow in Reykjavik, the capital of frickin Iceland, last winter. 20 years ago, when I was a child, we were covered in snow the entire winter. Sure, the changes brought on by global warming may look subtle down where most of you live, but up here, where a couple of degrees make a huge difference, we feel it happening, for real. Every year, the winters get shorter, and the summer gets longer. It's a fact, a statistic, not an opinion. We now have bees and hornets up here, something that was unthinkable just twenty years ago. Plants that didn't thrive here are becoming a part of the local flora. Migrating birds that used to leave during winter now sometimes stay. It's different. It's changing.

The climate is changing. Fast. And I don't think we're in control for much longer.

[Kerrigan]

It's not selective quoting because this thread is about Katrina and not the pacific or north atlantic.

[KeriVit]

I don't expect much from Europe, only because as much as natural disasters over there sadden me, I don't give. BUT the gov't does. So the govts of Europe should.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The best that global warming pundits can come up with is using models that nobody agrees on to predict a slight change in windspeed 100 years from now. Predicting the future is very dodgy business, I wouldn't put a lot of stock into it.

Whatever the case, there is no link between global warming and the hurricanes of our lifetime.

You should read a little more an a little more carefully. He says the most of the developments are dominated by natural cycles which are local properties, but globally there is an effect mainly on the total energy of the storms (`the storms last longer'). The increase is larger than what was previously expected by models which take global warming into account.

He also states the for the Atlantic: the signature of global warming is a lot weaker, here, the natural cycles dominate stronger at the Atlantic than elsewhere in the world.

Nobody said, these effects are fully understood, even the natural cycles aren't well-understood. But the increase in total energy is stronger than anticipated by previous models.

[Pendergast]

As usual, Canada will send some people to give a hand, probably electricians to help rebuild the network, an some Red Cross volunteers.

But there may be no need, the U.S. being quite self-sufficient usually.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

It's not selective quoting because this thread is about Katrina and not the pacific or north atlantic.

No, you said `there is no link between global warming and the hurricanes of our lifetime.' And your statement is not supported by the facts. You claim the same in a related thread.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

And your statement is not supported by the facts.

I think my statement that mankind is not responsible for Katrina or any other hurricanes is supported more by common sense than it is by internet facts. Forgive me for being committed in principle to this belief regardless of the scientific speculation du jour.

However, your statements aren't supported by fact either, being that they rely on one man's model which is widely disputed.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

Not like this.

You are right, worse.

No they are not. They'd be tremendously stupid to claim such a thing.

Then what is the lesson they are referring to then? What did we do, that needed us taught a "lesson"?

What they are saying is that Global Warming is real, measurable, and catastrophic.

No, they are saying Because of the US's lack of "vision" of the Koyto treaty, things like this will happen. Thus, America learning it's "lesson" for not signing such treaty.

What they are saying is that it must be stopped.
What they are saying is that things will be a lot WORSE in fifty years' time than what you are looking at now if nothing is done.

There is no proof anyone did anything to cause it. Or that it can be reversed.

But, Kevin: Even if they *are* wrong, which seems increasingly unlikely, who the **** are you to not give future generations the benefit of the doubt?

Again, nothing to do with their statement. And me? I am just a grain of sand.

Like we all are.

Things are going to happen regardless of what we do or do not do.

The person who said those things about Bush, America, and the Kyoto should indeed be ashamed for shilling his political zealotry with such hardships.

He might as well go looting. Just as big of a smack to the face.

The storms we are seeing today, aren't a result of global warming. Or anything us humans have done.

I think it's a bit arrogant to believe we even have a effect on anything in that way.

The earth puts out more pollutants by itself than we do.

If they earth is changing, it will no matter what we do, or have say in.

I wonder if Dinosaurs ran around screaming at the herbivores for eating too much plant material thus causing their distinction?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by analogika

What are you saying? There's a point in there, possibly, but it's obscured by stream of consciousness...

I'm saying that the U.S. doesn't wait to be asked before we get ready to help-and that I think aid for both flooded countries was probably already on its way before Katrina made landfall.

Originally Posted by analogika

Who the **** ever claimed such a thing?

GERMAN PAPERS: Katrina Should be A Lesson To US on Global Warming

Seems like everything is President Bush's fault. One day after Katrina hammered the Gulf Coast, German commentators are laying into the US for its stubborn attitude to global warming and Kyoto.

Originally Posted by analogika

However, it seems possible that, had the world agreed on and ratified something like the Kyoto protocol fifty or sixty years ago, it might damn well have had an effect on what we're seeing today.

On the off-chance that your grandchildren might be spared FAR worse than what has happened, is your response "what a bag of nuts" also?

Sure, if we were able to predict the future-including how technology we hadn't even thought of yet would tell us the answers to questions we couldn't yet ask, we might have been able to do something about the current problem before it became a problem. But fifty years ago we were still rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I think my statement that mankind is not responsible for Katrina or any other hurricanes is supported more by common sense than it is by internet facts. Forgive me for being committed in principle to this belief regardless of the scientific speculation du jour.

However, your statements aren't supported by fact either, being that they rely on one man's model which is widely disputed.

Apparently you are neither familiar with how scientific publications work nor common sense.

The paper was a review article which is a cumulation of work done by other scientists in the field. So it's not `one man's model' nor is it `one man's work'. Also, if you really take the time to listen to the interview, Emmanuel does not bluntly say this particular storm was influenced by global warming, but says globally, there is a trend which is partly due to global warming.

To replace scientific work with your common sense would probably not be a good idea. I also think you mistakenly believe global warming is synonymous for anthropogenic global warming.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Apparently you are neither familiar with how scientific publications work nor common sense.

No need for this pretentious silliness really.

[Hugi]

Oh, BTW, Iceland's glaciers are also melting and disappearing at a faster rate than ever seen before.
But I'm sure the folks that don't believe in global warming have a perfectly reasonable explanation for that too - after all, they are all much more intelligent than all the Scientists, with their "research" and "theories".

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No need for this pretentious silliness really.

As usual Kevin, you have nothing substantial to add to this discussion.

[Kerrigan]

I think common sense is underrated these days.

In the 80s I recall reading in Time Magazine that scientific models predicted that people in New York City were going to be wearing gas masks by 2000. The article mentioned how Reagan was not doing enough to combat these pollution problems, so we were all doomed to choke to death if we stepped foot outdoors. That never happened.

In the 90s we were told that we were going to open up a hole in the Ozone so wide that nobody could go outside without getting cancer. That never happened either.

Now we are told that if we don't have universal agreement on Kyoto the world will melt while we are hit by monster hurricanes unlike anything ever seen before. 10 years from now nobody will remember these claims, and environmentalists will have a completely new theory to scare everyone with.

A little common sense tells you that this is yet another pop-science fad that will be forgotten in a few years.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Hugi

As I said before, I hope other contries offer their help. It's simply the right thing to do in a time of crisis. But the stuff some of you folks are saying. Wow.

The whole world offered to help prevent such things from happening, but the US turned down Kyoto.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I think common sense is underrated these days.

In the 80s I recall reading in Time Magazine that scientific models predicted that people in New York City were going to be wearing gas masks by 2000. The article mentioned how Reagan was not doing enough to combat these environmental problems. That never happened.

In the 90s we were told that we were going to open up a hole in the Ozone so wide that nobody could go outside without getting cancer. That never happened either.

Now we are told that if we don't have universal agreement on Kyoto the world will melt while we are hit by monster hurricanes unlike anything ever seen before. 10 years from now nobody will remember these claims, and environmentalists will have a completely new theory to scare everyone with.

The reason why the hole in the ozone layer probably stopped growing (recent evidence suggests that) is precisely because action was taken. Spray cans use combustible cases now, new fridges run with a propane/butane mixture, etc.

I also think the people in Australia probably have another take on the whole ozone layer issue … 

Models are nowadays a lot more sophisticated and there are many direct as well as indirect correlations between the various parameters as there is a lot more computer power at the disposal of scientists. I would caution against simply dismissing that with `common sense'.

These claims are furthermore not made by environmentalists, but scientists. Scientists do not have a political agenda to promote, they have no reason to make up stuff to be in the center of attention.

[budster101]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

The whole world offered to help prevent such things from happening, but the US turned down Kyoto.

Where is China and Russia on Kyoto anyway? Just curious. Oh wait, they are too busy playing wargames with each other...

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by budster101

Where is China and Russia on Kyoto anyway?...

Yes, you can be happy to be able to compare yourselves to such stand-up countries!

[budster101]

Do you think I deserved your attitude? I asked a question and you get all bitchy?

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by budster101

Do you think I deserved your attitude? I asked a question and you get all bitchy?

I am sincerely sorry.

To answer your question, both China and Russia have ratified the Kyoto protocol.