That article goes out of its way to stipulate that Sandy was *not* directly caused by global warming, and you should too, because we believe in intellectual honesty and they don't. Powerful hurricanes are not attributable to global warming; they only serve as an allegorical reminder that the planet is more powerful than our civilization.
Warm ocean waters fuel hurricanes.... sooooo therefore one would have to assume that global warming would have some effect on the number and severity of hurricanes. Any presidential candidate that mocks the idea of climate change and the health of our environment is not worth the our time as citizens. For some reason the GOP has turned to a very radically right wing and anti environmental agenda which serves no one other than polluters and energy producers. This baffles me. The only reason I can see for it is that instead of a very moderate and broad base it has substituted it with a very small yet rich corporate base concerned only with short term profit.
Slowing climate change and helping families are mutually exclusive? It's amazing how little government can do when you put a spoilt asshole in charge who has no interest in helping it succeed. As Bill Mahr said, elect this asshole and you get everyone he's pandered to in the past 7 years of campaigning.
"the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it had “low confidence” that humans were currently affecting tropical cyclone patterns."

Good luck convincing 4 billion people to live without fridges, tv, computers, AC and anything more than a 20watt light bulb. You know what causes global warming? Prosperity.

Yes, we have climate change to thank.

Because since 2004 all "hurricanes" hitting the US have become Tropical Storms or less on hitting where near hurricane force winds..unlike the IPCC IV predictions.


Death Defying Image from Twitpix!!…

The tremendous force of nature, and what it can do..
@1 - Very well said.
Hey, it's Troll City tonight! The full moon must bring out all these basement-dwelling fappers.

But what @1 said. Constant, I love your movie and book reviews but Jesus can you please knock it off with the incessant, stupid tribalism for once in a Goddamn while? This is the kind of thing that makes pronouncements of "fact-based" (or logical, scientific, etc.) from so-called liberals utterly meaningless.

This is another example (in a long list with this issue) of the single cause fallacy. It's the same bullshit as Sean Hannity saying it's snowing a lot in DC, where's that global warming? har har

It's what is punching you in the face, Paul.

Your ovewhelming fucking smothering Stupidity.
@6 way off topic here, and no offense intended, honest: Why does your pic look so scary? Do you have something more 'metaphysical', as one might expect from a supreme deity?
Why does Komrade Mitt hate America so?
No coal! No nuke! No fracking gas! No oil! Candle power is all we need!
@12 Right on! Coal and oil cause no appreciable damage to the environment. We have never-ending supplies, right here at home too! It makes not a lick of sense to spend anything on so-called green energy. To hell with that crap.

Know what else? Solar power is from another celestial body. That makes it not only foreign; it's goddamned alien!


You guys are wrong. Scientists have predicted one of the consequences of our current global climate change is more intense weather. Basically, humans are adding a lot of energy into a chaotic system. When you do that, you increase the chaos. The weather become less predictable, and there are more intense instances of extreme weather.

If there is any mistake here, it's that the global climate needs to be looked at globally. One storm, one season, one year is not enough to show a trend. But there is enough recorded history to know that, yes, the climate is changing, it's changing very rapidly, (far more rapid than any other climate change of record) and that human activity is a factor.

So Sandy is not the proof of the current global climate change. It is a consequence of it. The proof has been established beyond doubt.
@14, read again:

"the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it had “low confidence” that humans were currently affecting tropical cyclone patterns."
@1, Paul didn't say that Sandy is directly due to climate change; yet, rising sea levels and warmer surface temperatures are contributing to greater storm surges, intensity of precipitation, etc So, the magnitude of several aspects of this extreme weather event are affected by climate change.
@14: I think you've well exceeded your allotted carbon credits for the day.
@14: You have it right on the money.
@17 It's always easy to make smart-ass remarks. It's more difficult to actually think about it. Especially when you're a programmed bot and have given up critical thinking. Nothing you say is original. It's all stuff I could find online or on Fox.
I remember that line. It's pretty good. Romney's speech, unfortunately for him, was loaded with snarky jokes, but was bereft of details or even a single mention of the troops fighting overseas.

I also pretty much agree with @14.
@5 and @7:

Well maybe Paul can dig up Romneys' FEMA should be axed quotes instead. He was perky over that idea too.

@19: Critical thinking? You act like climate change is something new? It is not. CO2 levels are rising, but the science is only partial on the ability for humans to change it in any significant way. Moreover, it appears you scan articles without fully reading them. We're all guilty of that from time to time so I won't fault you there.
FOX? It's the highest rated news network in the country, I do try to keep up with MSNBC, but they play prison documentaries and old repeats of 'To Catch a Predator' to often to be reliable. Why doesn't George Soros buy the old hulk?
You and I spread hyperbole like marmalade on a buttery English muffin. But we should really start to watch our weight.

Constant needs to chang his name to "Screaming Mimi." Because that's all he seems to do these days. He hasn't been rational for years now.
@22 - False equivalency, as your hyperbole is equivalent to untreated sewage and not marmalade.
"It's punching New York in the face right now."

What about this is not directly equating Sandy with climate change? Yes, @14, you're right for the most part. Paul wasn't that nuanced though, so he deserves the criticism he gets. It's also worth noting that there is debate on the current intensity of the "global warming signal."
Life was so much simpler when we were just saving rainforests 20 years ago. I miss those days.
@22, What gobbledygook, which I won't bother refuting except for your peculiar reading of the article linked by Paul. Klein basically says there is no doubt that climate change is making Sandy worse so wtf are you arguing about?
Paul missed the point that winter storms rarely interact fall hurricanes. The warmer than average springs in the arctic are forcing the normal cold winds down to then south quicker than usual. That's why this storm is unusual.
@22 I'd suggest reading. Just watching TV makes you pretty stupid. Remember the founding fathers never watched TV. Hold yourself to better standards.
I'm sure glad that while people are dying Paul has made time to take some political hits on brain dead Romney.

I mean I get the GOP is a bunch of classless thugs but I can see some of the Obama supporters are right there with them.

Keep it classy Paul. And why don't you post a link to the ARC and other groups that are going to be working with FEMA over the next few weeks helping the victims?
@OP: "Climate change isn't just a punchline to one of your jokes, or something you get to ignore during the debates."

Obama also ignored climate change during the debates.
WashingtonDC, New York and Boston being washed into the sea are bad things, how?
@22 You completely circumvented what #14 said in his/her post; you merely provided more double-talk and made it appear as though you had something important to say. Just admit you've lost the argument and move on.
Jeezus keerist, Gay Dude. Highest rated does not mean best.

If it did, then 'Here Comes Honey Boo Boo' would be winning Emmys. Or Golden Globes. Or anything besides scorn, unlike you.
@29 - Clutch your pearls tighter.
@34, so you've donated to help the victims of Sandy already? As they say put up or shut up dear.
Donations to the Red Cross will be very helpful. As George Takei points out, one option is to text REDCROSS to 90999. But do whatever your conscience demands.

This is a weak hurricane that merged with a noreaster and hit land at high tide during a full moon.

If it was a category 5, maybe you can say something.

But Global Warming? Use you fucking brains.


"CO2 levels are rising, but the science is only partial on the ability for humans to change it in any significant way."

I can't follow this sentence. Do you mean that humans are not responsible for rising CO2 levels, or that humans have no options for slowing/halting/reversing rising CO2 levels?

Which is the typical right wing line on climate change. 1. It's not happening. 2. Even if it is happening, it's not caused by human activity. 3. Even if it is caused by human activity, there's nothing we can do about it.

Of course, this all makes sense if our secret overlords are dinosaurs in disguise. Take all that carbon out of the ground and put it back into the atmosphere and we'll be back to the conditions when DINOSAURS RULED THE EARTH. Suck it, mammals.
@28: Oh I do read, a lot. I often read Salon, Mother Jones, The Nation, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, AmericaBlog, Daily Beast, Politico, you name it. I always try to read Paul Krugman's NYT columns.
Why? Because I'd really like to read something that would make me want to become a liberal. I mean, after all, it's hard being a minority within a minority. It would make it easier at parties in Seattle. I just have to keep silent unless I want to make a point and aggravate my friends.
But nothing is worked so far.
If any of you have better suggestions and links, I'd love to read them.
@39: You read both Daily Kos and The Nation and still proudly regurgitate Fox talking points? Then you must have missed both of these articles discussing how a study proved watching Fox actually makes you less informed than if you didn't keep up with current events at all. No two ways to read a title like "Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid" (that one's from Rolling Stone) unless you're actually working to be obtuse.

And it's not like those are the only sources. That study was gleefully discussed all over television and the Internet, by people only too happy to have a study to point to whenever one of their dickhead conservative relatives or acquaintances feels the need to spout some bullshit they heard of Fox. So if you keep up with any current media, or regularly chat with anyone that does, you would have heard about it. But then, it seems like you willfully ignore lots of unpleasant things you encounter in your life. Like your conservative candidate considering you less than human, for instance.
@37, Actually, my "fucking brains" tell me that higher sea level and warmer oceans cause higher storm surges, and more intense cyclones and a longer hurricane season that increase the probability of a cyclone merging with a nor'easter.
@39 You like to find and call bullshit. We all do. It's a fun game.

You read 'liberal' stuff, and find some quantity of BS, and say to yourself 'I knew it! BS right there. F'ing liberals.'
OK fine. Try turning that skill onto your conservative party. See how much BS you find there. Be honest - there's truckloads.

I still find one party to, at least, have a recurring theme of compassion (to a fault), and the other without (to a greater fault).
All else being relatively equal, that difference is how I choose my affiliations.
I think it makes all the difference in the world.
Climate change is happening - look at NYC!!! Science can only deal in probabilities, but its time powerful people like Romney looked at the massive evidence, the trends and the global patterns of warming and realized climate change is real even if its only measurable in probabilities!!!

There is nothing that unusual about a hurricane blowing into the mid Atlantic in late October (11 times since 1950). The only game changer was the cold air from the north blowing it inland. Couple this with uncanny bad timing (tides) and you get an unprecedented storm surge.

Here are some facts about October Storms...…

Once again, if it was a category 5 (shit, I'll give you a cat 4) hurricane this time of year, then you should feel free to scream that the sky is falling.

If you cry "climate change", and "global warming" at every severe weather event you wind up sounding like the boy who cried wolf.

@44, It's not my fault that you need the cataclysm caused by a CAT5 hitting the major met area in the US to understand that both theory and data show global warming fuels extreme weather.

yeah sure, after the chicken little imagery, "facepalm" ought to be enough to dismiss the link between climate change and having yet another 100-year event.
Actually, a 60 year event. The last time an October hurricane merged with a cold Canadian front to become an extra-tropical storm it killed 200 people in North America and caused historic flooding in the Carolinas. Hurricane Hazel, 1954. But that was global warming also, right?

Or could it be that while global warming and climate change are real, some storms are just storms? That sometimes a shitty category 1 October storm that hits on average every 6 years happens, through sheer bad luck and coincidence, to become what Sandy became.

Naw, that's not possible, right?
100-year recurrence interval is an average, which means one could have 2,3 or no 100-year events in a 100 year period. It is to be seen as the probability that any event will match the magnitude of an event that has 1% chance of occurring in any year.

Pretty much impossible since there is almost no doubt that global warming contributed to Sandy. Although, we don't know exactly how different Sandy would have been without global warming, rise in sea level and sea surface temperature (near record high in the Atlantic this season) increased the height of the storm surge, the amount of rainfall, the breadth of storm front, etc. None of this is speculative.
@49, that is the problem with society, you interpret assumptions and speculation differently and speak as though you are supporting something valid. This country grossly lacks common sense and consistantly exaggerates on what they perceive to be factual, yet completely speculative, theories. Too many uneducated or under educated saps sit around and positively bob their head with blank stares on their face saying "yeah, it must be true because so & so said it" rather than educate them selves on history or understand the logical progression of erosion, or how beautiful the earth once was before the ice age (that clearly was a result of global warming- sarcasm, just in case), the events that melted the ice ( those must have been some polutting MF'ers) or that El Niño & La Niña are completely different tropical occurrences that have been ongoing periodically back and forth for centuries and have only recently made waves (pun intended) because of the available communication devices in place to over exaggerate them to the ignorant. This phenomenon occurs often and was utilized as a "global warming" detriment but has since been forgotten for once again lack of evidence. Let me guess, you think earthquake inspired tsunami's are transcended from global warming too? And those have been occurring more often in recent history. I obviously know this will understood by so few but it was fun to piss off 90% of you. And just to be clear, there are technologies in place that make fossil fuel burning power plants release 99.9% clean air but Bin Laden, I mean Obama, destroyed the requirements that were put in place for all existing power plants (fossil fuel generators) to have this technology in place and then hypocritically bitched that they were bad for the environment....he was the dumbass to do it!!!!
@50, what?
@50, So your defense is people are using certain assumptions to make incorrect correlations? You may be right - there might be no direct correlation between this event and climate change. Are you then assuming because this change in the climate is not due to global warming, then no changes to climate are due to global warming?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.