QUICK TAKES | news & newsmaking broken down, with added nutrients

Hurricane Sandy, Climate Change, and Denial

By James Huang on Oct 31, 2012

This item, which we ran in February, generated…pardon the expression…heated debate. Now, with yet another freakish weather event in Hurricane Sandy, we thought we’d put it out there again.

http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/18/which-is-more-likely-a-conspiracy-of-millions-or-oil-companies-doing-what-they-do/

# #

Please keep your comments short, to the point, and respectful. We reserve the right to remove posts that do not comply.

notalent

Maybe the climate is changing and maybe it’s not our fault. Does anyone else feel they’re getting squeezed between self-righteous indignation and amoral corporate greed? I found an article in the Wall Street Journal that might be a different viewpoint worth considering…”Climate Change Is Nature’s Way” by Howard Bloom.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004574599981936018834.html
- Russ Baker
  
  The Wall St Journal’s op-ed pages have always been a vehicle for pro-corporate propaganda. Once Rupert Murdoch took over, it got even worse, if that is possible. One must treat these editorial contributions with great care.
  - notalent
    
    Mr. Baker,
    
    You are right, of course. I’ve read my Chomsky and I agree completely. My question was posed to induce a Socratic Debate. The thing is, I think Howard Bloom’s ideas are the most difficult and striking of any I’ve read, but also the most difficult to refute.
    P.S.
    I found Family of Secrets in early 09′ in Schenectady Public Library, NY. I read it cover to cover in two or three days…….stunned. Amazed. Inspired!,
    Thank You!
    Thomas Burns @notalent:disqus
    Wilmington NY
Rob

There’s just one problem with your chart:

Government money spent on climate research since 1989:

$79 billion

Oil money spent on climate research over the same period:

$23 million

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

NOW which is more likely?

I know you guys are being sincere in your investigations, but please, take an honest look at this issue from the other side. I’ve looked at this issue from both perspectives, and the man made argument doesn’t hold a candle to the natural change argument.

Think about it. What’s more likely?

The earth’s climate changes because man contributes a tiny additional fraction to CO2 in the atmosphere, which remains well within its cyclical range. ( Contrary to what the man made climate change crowd would have you believe. )

The earth’s climate changes because of cycles in the activity of the sun and ocean cycles which take place over decades and longer.

If you seriously want to give the skeptics a chance, going to the following will give you a good start:

http://joannenova.com.au/

http://climateaudit.org/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://drtimball.com/

These places are far better places to look at the other side of the argument than The Wall Street Journal, or other mainstream media sources.
- Russ Baker
  
  Rob, given the amount of corporate disinformation on this issue, I’d feel a lot better if you would fully identify yourself and any personal interest you may have in this issue. The $79 billion figure you use is from a study by a lobby group that has funding connections to some of the biggest right-wing foundations in America, including the notorious Scaife, behind the relentless attacks on Bill Clinton. Even if true, that would be about $3 billion a year–or $10 per American. Way too much to research the possible extinction of life on earth, eh Rob? By the way, what is $3 billion? That’s the fine the pharmaceutical company Glaxo just paid to the feds: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/glaxosmithkline-fined-billion-16699782 If you’ll provide a phone number, I’d like to interview you in preparation for an article for this site. Thanks.
  - Rob
    
    Hi Russ,
    I’ll send you an email if that’s alright. I’m just someone who has an interest in this issue. I’ll be in touch soon.
    
    Rob
  - Richard Aberdeen
    
    See post above about pollution being harmful to people. This is reason enough to bet rid of pollution and, arguing about climate change is just in the way of convincing conservative mothers to change. Pollution is very bad for our children. This is more than reason enough to get rid of it.
gogetem1

I’m so confused on this issue now, I just don’t know what to believe.
- Mark
  
  Forget about global warming and concentrate on not
  
  polluting. Nobody wants to live in a polluted world and pollution “might” cause global warming. Watch “Carbon Nation”
W. Stocker

One of the things the critics of climate change never bring up is the unheard of levels of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere. I am not sure of where we are at exactly, but I know we are in the 390′s ppm and it is increasing by 1.5 ppm every year. Check out this data from the Vosdoc ice sheet that was published in “Nature”. I have a copy here: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/Appy/ACC/vostoktempandco2.jpg

Find 390 ppm on that graph. I think that says it all.
- end-of-the-folly
  
  390 ppm? As in 0.04% of the atmosphere??
  
  It “says it all” how gullible you are if you think a beneficial, benign, elementary gas like carbon dioxide is effecting temperature swings of 12 degrees Celsius (from -9 to +3C in your graph). How can such a low concentration of this gas be changing the climate? Changes from 0.019% to 0.03% atmospheric concentration of CO2 are driving climate change? Duh……
  
  Wouldn’t it be just as logical to say that the change in CO2 was CAUSED BY the temperature change; rather than it was THE CAUSE OF IT! (both conclusions are unwarranted, of course, without more context and fact. Good Rorschach picture though, for us all to get worked up about, meanwhile evil mafia elite are busy hatching evil plans…)
  - W. Stocker
    
    Mr. Folly, the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide has been well documented. It was first postulated by Joseph Fourier in 1824. In 1858 John Tyndall found a way to measure the “blanket” capacities of various gases and proved Fourier right. Then at the end of the 19th century Svante Arrhenius was the first to predict that humans could increase the temperature of the Earth by burning fossil fuels. He found that by doubling the atmosphere’s concentration of carbon dioxide would increase the Earth temperature by 3.8 degrees F. So duh yourself Mr. Folly.
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/ opit

I think you may have overlooked a number of possibilities. Let’s start with the IPCC. It is a UN agency proposing to levy a global tax on the use of energy payable to itself. Ahem. That is not a scientific body nor a disinterested party.

How else could you get people to solemnly hum the mantra that ‘science can predict the future’. We know this because it has predicted the past ! ( A person could have some real fun with that level of gullibility. )

Rob did not steer you wrong. Alleging corporate interference with assessment is a no brainer. But. That does nothing to establish ‘scientific consensus’. Heck. I would gladly settle for an actual fact or two : but they are scarce in the extreme.

I blog. And I flog this topic half to death. My sidebar is only the start of resources available to widen search if one wishes to.

http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.ca/p/environmental-challenges.html
Richard Aberdeen

It is a well documented indisputable scientific and medical fact that pollution is very bad for people, very bad for the animals people eat, very bad for the water people drink and, very bad for the soil people grow their food in. This is reason enough to get rid of as much human caused pollution as fast as humanly possible. Wheter or not the planet is warming up and whether or not human pollution is causing it to warm up, is completely and entirely irelevant to the fact that pollution is extremely harmful for people and our offspring. Why can’t Fox Noise climate deniers, scientists and environmentals all get off their high horse, stop wasting time, energy and huge piles of money arguing about what is wrong with the planet and instead, start pointing out to conservative mothers that pollution is very bad for their own children, just like lack of universal health care encourages the spread of contagious diseaseas and thus, is likewise very bad for conservative mothers own children?
dingding

No mention of “geoengineering/climate control”? or “weather wars”? Technology has come a long way since they invented nuclear technology. Is this article a diversion? If so, sorry for bringing all this up!
Fred

Hurricane Sandy, one data point out of many recorded storms that have hit the US Atlantic coast: http://www.midatlantichurricanes.com/NewJersey.html The 1938 “Great Hurricane” that hit NJ was far more powerful- category 5 in fact. When a single storm, a minimal strength storm at that, is presented as “proof positive”, I am left wondering why such idiocy is even allowed on the air much less promoted. This is the sort of non-science nonsense that discredits the AGW argument…that and Climategate of course.
https://sites.google.com/site/themattprather Matt Prather

I think the case I presented previously still stands:
http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/18/which-is-more-likely-a-conspiracy-of-millions-or-oil-companies-doing-what-they-do/#comment-448822983
(this link is supposed to link to my comment; just find my name in the comments if it does not work for you)
John

This is absolute nonsense and you must know it. To go this far you must be doing research and therefore know Science is being manipulated to create a credible idea from real facts. But the facts are then pinned in the wrong place to pass as Scientific and irrefutable evidence, to preduce this credible idea as opposed to fact. I say that for others who are being fed so much managed mis information, you must know this. There is little or no industrial activity where there once was tunnels and tunnels of emissions. Reductions across all energy sources in emissions etc. Yet the sudden weather patterns are to blame for something done in last few centuries. Is the weather suffering for lazy syndrome. Just getting to the stage it decides ‘shucks we better react’ otherwise humans will keep messing up. I too question the validity of this site to produce such an article and ignore the prime suspect and only real suspect for the extreme weather issues. Apart from direct weather implications such as consequences of logging results in flooding and deforestation I may be wrong be brings I believe drought and excessive dry conditions. That is direct and on going unchallenged occurrence with no tax or campaign curtailing.

And as for why is the weather changing and how is the weather being so dramatically disturbed. You must know and lots lots of official organisations know Scientists know if fact the man on the street knows although he may not have joined the dots. It is Weather Modification and is as clear as the fake elements emerging across the sky that go unanswered. The perfectly formed circle or square clouds the clouds that have no movement but are more like candy floss than natural moving cloud. The various shapes that are static and fail to move for long long periods. Mostly the presence of the planes that have to be repeated flown back and forth in their hundreds that are way beyond any commercial purpose or need.

The known objective form University Studies UN and across other bodies of Weather Modification. Been discussed in governments etc etc. Yet for some reason the ludicrous drum been banged is something that happened several hundred years ago and early this century is now causing excessive first excessive heat, then excessive rain, then hurricanes, then excessive cold snaps.

For those who are confused dont be. It’s all very simple. History of the world throws up collaborations of tyrants, rogues and mad men every 50 years. Its just evolved into money democracy and science. Same content different bottle.

Not being arrogant when I say dont add by arguing as this is plain fact, weather modification is interfering with the stratosphere that is absolute fact as that is its scientific goal current objective. Why and by Whom. Who is the culprit is the debate. Maths 1 + 1 basic is called for here. So what is the endless confusion of tapes and tapes of scattered science purpose to perhaps create an illusion and distract from a reality.