Hurricane Sandy, Climate Change, and Denial

Reading Time: 1 minute

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.

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

# #

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

0 responses to “Hurricane Sandy, Climate Change, and Denial”

  1. Title

    […]we prefer to honor numerous other online web pages on the internet, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Beneath are some webpages worth checking out[…]

  2. Matt Prather says:

    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)

  3. Fred says:

    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.

  4. dingding says:

    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!

  5. Richard Aberdeen says:

    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?

  6. W. Stocker says:

    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 says:

      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 says:

      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.

  7. gogetem1 says:

    I’m so confused on this issue now, I just don’t know what to believe. :(

    • Mark says:

      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”

  8. Rob says:

    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 says:

      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 says:

      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 says:

      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.

  9. notalent says:

    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 says:

      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 says:

      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