Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Tsunami and global warming?

Take a look at this BBC video (~1 min into the video)

Whirlpool - Japanese tsunami

What a bunch of losers.

Mar 11, 2011 at 10:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

(Also on Chutzpah thread)


We are going to see a lot of this horse-shit about global warming and tsunamis thanks to a dreadful piece on grist by Christoper Mimms:

For a taster of how wrong Mimms is, see here:

And Yulsman in comments responding to Mimms here:

All: please copy this comment or the links to absolutely every idiot who mentions 'tsunami' and global warming in the same breath.

Then go on to remind them that using this terrible event as a platform for their CAGW hobby-horse is the vilest narcissism imaginable.

Mar 12, 2011 at 2:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

There may be serious problems arising from this tsunami for those of us trying to take a realistic view on energy supplies. The problems at the nuclear plant will encourage the radical environmentalists to believe that only they can safeguard the human race.
BBC uber-warmist Richard Black is already stirring the pot as hard as he can:

Mar 12, 2011 at 4:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid C


'Page not found' when I went to the BBC site about the tsunami whirlpool.

Mar 12, 2011 at 5:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Greenpeace is already exploiting the situation. They must be really happy as this is a chance for them to beat up Japan and nuclear power.

“How many more warnings do we before we finally grasp that nuclear reactors are inherently hazardous? The nuclear industry always tells us that situation like this cannot happen with modern reactors..

Failing to mention they're not modern reactors, they're 1960's designs and the problem one was built in 1970. Personally I think it's a testament to the engineering that the site survived both the earthquake and the tsunami with so little damage.

Mar 12, 2011 at 7:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

EU getting in on the act.

The EESC president’s statement on the natural disaster in Japan and the Pacific region
11 Mar 2011

Speaker: Staffan Nilsson, Organisation: EESC

"The earthquake and tsunami will clearly have a severe impact on the economic and social activities of the region. Some islands affected by climate change have been hit. Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity – not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming? Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do."

(posted in unthreaded before finding this discussion)

Mar 12, 2011 at 10:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

The evident eco-nut glee which characterises much of the state broadcaster's early web offerings on the Japan crisis is nauseating. Hundreds of thousands (million?) of people are likely homeless and without power, tens of thousands likely dead and all Richard effin Black can do is try and scare monger on some geriatric nuclear power stations. wonder how long it'll be before they start comparing it to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The pictures they're running on the news front page I looked at (from a Dutch IP address) would make you think it was a nuclear emergency first and an earthquake last - scummy propagandising on a shameless and epic scale.

Staffan Nilsson? - oh, thanks for that one...

Mar 12, 2011 at 11:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterTom


Mr Mimms has got someone else's goat...

Mar 13, 2011 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterTom
Mar 13, 2011 at 12:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub


Wow. Yes, countingcats doesn't mince his words. Mind you, the opportunistic climate megaphoning around this disaster is unforgivable. It's behaviour like this that puts certain types of 'activist' completely beyond the pale.

Mar 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

A dam failed in Fukushima and destroyed an estimated 1,800 homes, does this mean hydro power should be abandoned? Or, tidal generation vs tsunami. Or wind turbines, large spinning masses on top of small spindles vs quake or tsunami. Or, once the humanitarian crisis is over, look at what worked, what didn't and lessons learned to minimise loss of life or property during any repeat.

Despite the damage and horrific loss of life, looking at some of the videos, I keep thinking it could have been much much worse. The quake dumped enough energy to kick the island 2.5m sideways, yet many buildings survived (initially) thanks to being engineered to withstand quakes. The helicopter videos of the Tsunami sweeping in showed the power of nature vs man. I'm unconvinced solar farms in fields would survive any better than the homes or greenhouses did against the debris being carried by the wave. Hardended structures like reactors look more sensible to preserve generating capacity and allow power to be restored to the population faster.

Mar 13, 2011 at 2:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Media using this disaster to remind people of the dangers of nuclear power run a grave risk of being crass.

The pictures and news coming from Japan are just horrible, and no matter how much a bandwagon presents itself, the temptation to hitch oneself to it should be resisted.

I have both thoughts and feelings about any implications this may have vis a vis nuclear power, but they can wait a bit.

In the interim, if any of you do have tuppence ha'penny spare, and are so minded, the Japanese could do with a little help right now. I favour the red cross but there are plenty of other ways you can give them a hand.

Mar 14, 2011 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed


Media using this disaster to remind people of the dangers of nuclear power run a grave risk of being crass.

Won't stop the buggers doing it though. And by 'media' I take it you mean 'anti-nuclear greens'?

I have both thoughts and feelings about any implications this may have vis a vis nuclear power, but they can wait a bit.

Agreed. Now is not the time. Perhaps BH might be persuaded to post on 'nuclear vs CO2' or something similarly contentious in a few weeks time and we can have a legitimate debate. Or it could run as a discussion here, behind the bike sheds.

In the interim, if any of you do have tuppence ha'penny spare [...]

(Done.) Good for you. Thanks for the link.

Mar 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Our friends on the BBC News Channel managed at one stage last night to refer to the earthquake "and the tsunami that preceded it".
I can never work out whether there is anybody employed by our national broadcaster to make sure their staff aren't talking drivel. Or is it just that they don't care any more?
I noticed this morning (DT) that they are planning to re-edit Wonders of the Universe because of the number of complaints about the level of the background music which must be the first time for years they've actually paid attention to what their paymasters actually think. First reaction in this house: "God, it must have been bad!"

Mar 14, 2011 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterSam the Skeptic

"Won't stop the buggers doing it though. And by 'media' I take it you mean 'anti-nuclear greens'?"
Mar 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM | BBD

Yup. I've been doing a lot of cringing on behalf of 'my gang' over the last couple of days. This is not a situation to making political capital from right now. It raises discussion points, but I don't find then to be either tasteful or a priority.

Mar 14, 2011 at 2:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

“countingcats doesn't mince his words”

He has a nice turn of phrase, too. Commenting on Mims’s idea that “Parts of the earth that are now rarely affected by tsunamis .. could be hit by ‘glacial earthquakes’ in which glacier ice crashes to earth in massive landslides” he points out that glaciers “don’t crash to the fucking earth like some giant airborne Fab lolly!”

Well, it made me smile.

Mar 15, 2011 at 2:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

This a much better article from the BBC:

Seem sensible anyway.

Mar 16, 2011 at 11:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Cowper

Maybe it is not a case of 'resisting the temptation'. Maybe it is just business decision. To link global warming to disaster, that is.

(The vultures of climate change activism)

Think about it. 'Your guys' - the greens - want to raise awareness and create acceptance of the fact that global warming can potentially lead to more severe/more numerous natural weather-related disasters.

These guys - whoever they are - want the public to just mentally link any disaster whatsoever, reflexively, to 'global warming', even if it be mockingly so.

These are different from you guys, aren't they?

They don't care that 'linking' global warming to any disaster, ignoring the human tragedy involved, will probably piss people off - which the greens presumably, do not want to do.

Whenever there is a significantly enormous event which even the worst news cynic cannot ignore - there is a brief moment for 'communication' - the mind is receptive. Just step in and utter the words 'global warming', and it has to react. You are assured of this reaction only in a short time-frame, when the disaster has just occurred and is unfolding.

That's why someone always bites the bullet - damn the consequences. It is like selling action figures and posters during a Hollywood big budget blockbuster's brief run. You sell global warming during disasters.

Nobody buys those dolls otherwise and the movie is pretty limp, and even the people who buy them think later - 'God, what was I thinking'. But nonetheless, the sellers sure do sell a lot of the toys at the time.

Mar 17, 2011 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub