Climate Alarmism – Using Our Fear of Hurricanes


Climate alarmists excel at gathering government funding to “fight” climate change. Today, the U.S. government is spending almost $9 billion each year in grants to study man-made climate change. Tens of billions more are spent for green energy subsidies, grants and loans. The world is spending over $250 billion each year to try to “decarbonize” national economies. Yet, mounting evidence shows that climate change is natural and man-made influences are very small. Suppose we shift efforts away from misguided efforts to control climate and toward solving the real problems of our nation and the world?

Guest post by Steve Goreham

Hurricane Sandy has come and gone, leaving a path of destruction. More than 100 people have been killed and 8.5 million lost power. Nineteen states from Maine to Tennessee were impacted, with deaths reported in 10 states. Widespread flooding and fires caused extensive damage in New Jersey and New York. More than two feet of snow fell in western Maryland, West Virginia, and parts of Tennessee. The power of nature in action is frightening to behold.

But some believe that mankind is now causing hurricanes, or making them worse. Former Vice President Al Gore warns, “Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty weather.” Activist Bill McKibben declares, “…what it means that we’re now seeing storms of this unprecedented magnitude. If there was ever a wake-up call, this is it.”

These comments are an outgrowth of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate.

The theory of man-made global warming claims that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing stronger hurricanes and storms, droughts and floods, the melting of Earth’s ice caps, and dangerous sea-level rise. Mr. Gore now paints the Halloween image of “dirty weather.”

Yet, carbon dioxide is only a trace gas in our atmosphere. Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are carbon dioxide. Mankind’s contribution in all of human history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules. Nevertheless, proponents of the theory of man-made climate change now claim that this one molecule was responsible for Sandy, a hurricane with a 1,000-mile diameter.



65 Comments on "Climate Alarmism – Using Our Fear of Hurricanes"

  1. Anarchy Pony | Nov 6, 2012 at 5:38 pm |

    Is your head up your ass for the warmth, Camron? Or do you like the smell?

  2. Unless man exercises reason, he will jump on any theory with emotional zeal instead of thoughtful examination. IF climate change is real, I suspect that it is cyclical as well due to Solar cycles and weather.

  3. bobbiethejean | Nov 6, 2012 at 7:17 pm |

    Yeah because NASA, the CIA, the CDC, and the world of climate scientists are all full of shit, right? HERK-ADURRRR. I erm quailerfide to interperderp climit dayta. Herp. *burger-flips*

    • Definitely one of the most ignorant posters here aren’t you bobbie. Let’s just file everything you posted under appeal to ridicule and false dichotomy.

      • bobbiethejean | Nov 6, 2012 at 8:15 pm |

        Considering what a notorious laughing stock you are around here, I’m not even remotely phased by your attempt at derision. Furthermore, that is not a false dichotomy at all and ridicule is appropriate when confronted by something that is ridiculous.

        • Or just admit you have no fucking clue on this issue and bluster is your only seeming defense. Let me explain to you exactly how you invoked those particular fallacies so that you can understand how ridiculous and ignorant you appear to anyone capable of rational and critical thinking.

          You first employed a strawman argument as nowhere is it ever argued in the article presented, that NASA or any of the other alphabet agencies you brought up are full of shit and to insinuate that either, A. your veiled appeal to authority (not the various facts as compiled by dozens of various organizations not all of which are U.S government related) insinuates that either you believe without question what these organizations have to say regarding climate change (again they are not brought up in the article other than they receive 9 Billion dollars annualy to look for favored the conclusions of the IPCC) or B. If you disagree with them you are immediately cast as a “denier” or in your case a long meandering stream of epithets. This constitutes an example of a false dichotomy as there are more than the two options you give. The epithets you fall back on to couch your non arguments are a perfect example of your need to invoke appeal to ridicule and ad hominem attacks to avoid discussion of the matters at hand.

          Q.E.D. You are incapable of responding in an articulate or relevant manner and this is to be expected when your intentions are not to discuss the various controversial positions or their merit but to troll and poison the well by any means necessary given the pattern and nature of your posts here and on other blogs.

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 7, 2012 at 10:47 am |

            [Or just admit you have no fucking clue] I’ve studied this matter extensively. I’ve read several books, I’ve participated in intelligent, thoughtful discussions, and I’ve given fair consideration to all sides. I’d say I have a clue.

            [so that you can understand how ridiculous and ignorant you appear to anyone capable of rational and critical thinking.] If I were one one-millionth as ignorant and ill-informed as you are, I would not presume to speak for rational, critical thinking people. Then again, if I were one one-millionth as ignorant and ill-informed as you are, I probably wouldn’t have the mental wherewithal to conclude that I shouldn’t which would explain why you do. So very Dunning-Kruger of you.

            [You first employed a strawman] It is a legitimate criticism to point out that if you’re not a climate scientist, you’re likely not qualified to interpret climate data. It’s also a legitimate criticism to point out that ya might want to give a world’s worth of EXPERTS a little more consideration than the fundies on Fox News.

            [your veiled appeal to authority] Appeal to authority does not always count as a fallacy. Notice the part about EXPERTISE.

            [you believe without question what these organizations have to say regarding climate change] I never believe what anyone says without question. I always assume anyone, including myself, could be wrong about anything. But for now, climate change has a pretty strong case.

            [This constitutes an example of a false dichotomy] No it does not. False dichotomy: Either you believe in CC or you don’t. My actual stance: There are people who accept it wholly, somewhat, don’t care, are undecided, deny somewhat, and flat out reject- and I don’t deny that other stances exist.

            [The epithets you fall back on] My comment was just a jab. It wasn’t meant to be taken as a serious argument. If you think it was, there is something wrong with you.

            [appeal to ridicule] Ridiculous things earn ridicule. Case in point: the article states in the very first paragraph, something found to be false by all those EXPERTS I mentioned.

            [Q.E.D. You are incapable of responding] Incapable? Really. Now that actually is a fallacy. 😉 To say I am incapable of responding in an articulate or relevant manner is demonstrably false. Sometimes, I simply do not feel like wasting my time when a point can be made just as strongly and far more succinctly with well deserved mockery.

          • How ironic that he faults you for appealing to ridicule!

          • I simply feed the trolls back their own vomit.

          • “The world of climate scientists” << Please humor me and define this. Feel free to offer substantiation in the form of sources. Let's go point by point. Just so you know, mockery is appeal to ridicule a logical fallacy and does not suffice as evidence. I reallly shouldn't have to reiterate this time and again but you are obviously a *special* case.

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 7, 2012 at 3:41 pm |

            Nope. I’m tired of wasting my time trying to penetrate your massive, basaltic, reason and logic-proof skull. Furthermore, your assessment of my intelligence might actually matter to me if you weren’t Dunning-Kruger syndrome incarnate.

          • In other words you can’t and you quit. Nice you again use ad hominem in place of logic, isn’t that predictable.

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 10, 2012 at 11:34 am |

            Why should I bother reasoning with you when you appear resistant to reason? NOTHING I put forth would change your mind. The same cannot be said of me. I will change my beliefs and opinions when confronted with new information. You? You just keep on believing whatever makes you happy because apparently you’d rather be happy than informed.

          • Your unending strawman attack aside, let’s see if you really mean anything you say. You say you are open to new information? Ok explain to me then why you have railed against this particular article. On what evidentiary grounds do you base your perspective? If you resort to already discredited arguments that are nothing but appeals to authority then you are not really open to new ideas in my opinion.

            But humor me if you dare. Pick one aspect of the debate on climate science and I will present new information for you to consider. Let’s see if you are more than just talk and backhanded character assassination techniques.

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 10, 2012 at 12:42 pm |

            You very clearly do not know what a strawman argument means. This is the third time I have seen you misuse that term. A strawman is when someone purposefully mischaracterizes your argument then knocks down the mischaracterized argument. I have done no such thing.

            I could answer your questions but at the moment I have an abscessed tooth that is killing me so it will have to wait. Have a nice day.

          • No silly, I’m saying your ridiculous mischaracterization of me is a straw man not in the strict interpretation of the strawman fallacy as applied to argument. I’m saying that you misrepresenting me constantly is an ad hominem attack which is similar to a strawman attack in that it attacks your fabricated version of me rather than what I have actually said, let alone the merit of the arguments I have presented. So nice try but still no dice.

            But let’s not avoid the real issue here. Sorry about your tooth. Still my challenge stands for when you are ready.

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 10, 2012 at 6:22 pm |

            My ability to reason right now….. gone. I just yanked out part of my tooth with a pair of needle nose pliers. That’s how bad it hurts. And I have to wait till MONDAY before anything can be done about it. XC But I will be back!

          • Dueling aside please get to a doctor/dentist soon. That sounds serious. Take your time and good luck with your recovery.

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 14, 2012 at 6:18 am |

            Tooth has been yanked. I never felt a pain like that before in my life. Now….. what were we dueling about? >.>; Bah. I’m not even mad anymore. You believe what you believe and I’ll believe what I believe and we’ll all be happy…. especially me because I’m not in excruciating agony anymore. XD

          • Glad you are no longer in pain! Take care Bobbie 🙂

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 10, 2012 at 8:43 pm |

            Clove oil is a good dental anesthetic that you should be able to get at a health food store. It was the standard prior to more modern ones.
            Badass self dental work
            Make a wick with a small piece of saline soaked gauze & insert into cavity left by tooth. Is it abscessed?

          • bobbiethejean | Nov 11, 2012 at 5:47 am |

            At this point, I’ll try anything. T_____T

      • Lets just ignore the consequence of the flooding of coastal cities and the loss of trillions of dollars worth of residential, commercial and industrial propety. The associated deaths, hundreds of millions of homeless, meh, who cares.

        Instead let’s focus on beating the crap out of those people who say we should ignore the problem, I mean really targeting those that spread the lies and those that pay for them.

        This is a huge problem and those that help to create will end up paying a personal price. You are witness to the consequence of altering our environment and how it impacts upon permanent social infrastructure that can not be shifted.
        You will find that those who pay for greenhouse affect denial will start to back off for fear of retaliation by those who are paying the price of the greenhouse affect. Out of the millions affected by that hurricane how many were already mentally unstable, how many would lash out for that impact upon their lives, how many would seek someone to blame and seek vengeance upon their person.
        There will be many people as always looking to seek someone to blame for their problems and wanting some payback. Playing in this whole greenhouse game of denial could become very risky. It is just the nature of people and playing around with very large numbers of them. Statistic are going to result in unstable fringe elements of human society reacting very poorly indeed.

        • Trillions? Hundreds of Millions of homeless? Did you just come down from watching 2005 era Alarmist fear mongering? Yes let’s advocate violence against those who prefer to think objectively! (sarcasm) You are definitely making a case for the alarmist crowd here!

  4. Ryan Valentine | Nov 6, 2012 at 7:17 pm |

    Wow .. an article quoting Anthony Watts as a legit source on disinfo. Ya’ll are shilling for the oil companies now or just can’t be bothered to fact-check your sources?

    • So Disinfo posts one article of 4 this week sharing a different perspective on “climate change” (newsflash it changes every day!) and are automatically accused of “shilling”. Interesting. Ryan did you happen to read the article? I’m guessing no. Nice Ad hominem attack and attempt to discredit the source without actually presenting any evidence to do so. Did you bother to fact check the article? Which of the sources cited do you take issue with and why? What articles do you cite to refute those in the article you disagree with?

      • Weather changes every day, not climate.

        • cli·mate/ˈklīmit/Noun:The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

          • To nitpick yes the Weather changes everyday as does climate given that weather constitutes the temperature data that is aggregated to create climate records.
            Why split hairs, care to discuss the article andrew?

          • Fallacy of composition.

          • Not really. Semantical hair splitting.

          • I disagree.

          • It’s equivocation. The climate does not change every day.

          • My intention is to mention that the weather that forms climate changes everyday and thus climate is changed everyday, I understand your correction but at the same time I think the bigger picture is being lost on one detail here by you and given that you have become fixated on this to the exclusion of the larger more important discussion I offer you this. Climate is created by changes in weather yes? Not really interested in getting binary on this, the shades of grey where poets play and left brain analysts flounder is what I am describing. Try to see the forest for the trees or the Geometry of the G’z. Potions and Quotients all the same.

          • Thanks for proving my point. The climate does not change every day.

      • I pretty much stopped reading at “Yet, mounting evidence shows that climate change is natural and man-made influences are very small.” Really, what’s the point of fact checking after that. Agree with the basic premise of the title of the article though. Science just isn’t sexy enough for most people so the media is going to use fear to sell the story and the industry is going to use fear to sell you solar cells.

    • Matt Staggs | Nov 7, 2012 at 10:08 am |

      Ryan, this post, like many others, are contributed by our readers. There is no endorsement intended.

  5. Where climate change is concerned, the only debate that matters is the scientific one. And the scientific debate ended in the 1990s, since then it has just been a matter of rapidly mounting evidence that humankind is in grave danger. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional.

    • So what makes you believe the debate “ended in the 1990’s” exactly? Someone should alert all of those dissenting climate scientists who still disagree with the IPCC’s unscientific propaganda.

      • About A Half Hour | Dec 5, 2013 at 12:35 pm |

        “All those dissenting climate scientists”?

        This is not a political process, Mr. Wiltshire. “Dissent” is for matters of politics. This is a matter of science. Opinion doesn’t come into it. Rational thought, backed by evidence, is all that matters here.

        The IPCC are the only scientific body we can trust, and they represent the best work and the best conception of the climate change problem that we, as a species have. The IPCC embraces the full-range of _scientific_ evidence; if it’s not in the IPCC report, it’s because it’s not science.

        Your “dissenting” scientists either have no evidence to support their position, or are not climate scientists, or both. If they had legitimate, supportable claims, they would be included in the IPCC community and the IPCC reports.

        In other words, Sir, anyone who claims that climate change is not happening, is either mis-informed, delusional, or a shill. Which are you?

        • So what if I told you there was evidence of concentrations of CO2 double the alarmist figure of 350ppm that predate the ability for humankind to produce our current levels of CO2 emissions? They are peer reviewed, you just have to look them up. Would you be interested in seeing them? You are presuming so much and I’m given you a perfect answer disproving your contention, so the only question that remains is does the truth matter to you? If so I’m happy to share it. Otherwise there are ample answers to the unfounded conclusions you have presented. Why don’t we take it one aspect at a time. You go first, what is your strongest evidence for AGW and what are your sources?

    • So you presume that there are ZERO dissenting climate scientists and that the debate is ended. How convenient for your argument. Why not try it over at The multitude of dissenting climate scientists there would be happy to clear up your incorrect assumptions.

  6. ohh Camron. You just have your heels dug in as deep as you can press them don’t ya? Know what I think about all this arguing about climate change, I think, and I’m being serious, that there’s actually two conversations happening. The one you, Camron, seem to want to have is a discussion about the nitty gritty factoids regarding data and whether climate change is happening due to man made activities or is a natural fluctuation that occurs in history. The second conversation is one that is below the surface in all the back and forth between your angry defiant belittling of others and those of us who agree with 97% of climate scientists. That second conversation isn’t being spoken so much as it is interwoven and the sum of it comes down to a common sense understanding that we live in a finite amount of liveable space, land, water and atmosphere. Pumping toxins into these resources is going to poison them which harms us. So I think, and I don’t want to assume this but I believe it’s true, that your climate change denialism sounds like you’re A. arguing for industries and businesses that don’t treat the earth’s resources with the moderation, respect and care much less to reduce environmental impact and B. that you’re being myopic with your belligerant perspective. I mean, are you arguing this position soley so you can prove that you’re right so you can feel like you have won an argument or do you believe that there’s a purpose to this climate change denial perspective? The bigger picture is the important one. Why so upset about putting resources and money into creating a more self sustaining civilization?

    • I’ve already explained to you why your 97% statistic is a joke.
      Here let’s analyze the math. (for the audience, I’ve already shared this information with Honu 3x’s at least.

      All information below is sourced from

      Tell me where are you getting your information? What are your sources??

      10,256 original questionnaires sent out

      3,146 respondents

      So only 21% of the already limited sample responded first of all. (Biased Sample)

      Of those limited respondents, only .024% were considered experts even though all of the fields which would have applied overlay and relate intimately to climate science, only those who specifically self designated themselves as “climate scientists” were figured in to the sequestered rubric.

      “Climate science is a huge multidisciplinary field”.

      The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where
      a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of
      77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure,
      based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the
      majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of many
      critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews here, here and here

      So in reality only .024% of respondents were cited answering the very shallow and simplistic questions as demonstrated below many of the scientists questioned took great issue with the framing of the questionnaire given its inherent biases.

      Problems with questions 1 and 2 and the word ‘significant’

      “Questions 1 asks if I think temperatures are warmer
      than the 1800s, but doesn’t indicate if I’m supposed to compare to
      today, the last 10 years, the last 50 years, or… Without telling me what
      I’m comparing to, I cannot answer the question.

      Q2 then asks if I think that humans are “a significant”
      contributor to warming temperatures, but I can only answer yes or no. I
      happen to think that we are one among many contributing factors, so I
      answered yes, but I couldn’t explain this. The third question then asks
      me why I think humans are a major contributor, but is phrased in such a
      way that it’s implicit that I’m now listing them as THE significant
      factor. They are not the primary cause, but I had to stop the survey at
      this point because it was forcing me to answer queries about why I
      think they are.

      As constructed, your responders will be unable to indicate that there
      are multiple causes to climate change, that climate change is the norm
      on Earth and has been going on throughout geologic time, and that there
      is strong evidence to indicate that climate change not only occurred
      before humans existed, but also was probably more extreme than the event
      we are living in today.”


      Your use of the word ‘significant‘. It
      seems clear that human activity has caused an increase in CO2 levels.
      That, in theory, might have caused an increase in global temperature.
      However, did it? If so, was it the only cause? If it was a cause, was it
      a significant cause?

      So please explain to me why you continue to prattle on this false consensus nonsense?

    • jimbo jones | Nov 8, 2012 at 11:30 pm |

      Give us a break with the experts! What’s a global warming expert? A person who gets paid to research global warming. OK, so 97% of the people in the biz think the premise of the biz is fine and dandy. In other news, 97% of interviewed Catholic clergy said they believe in the one true God and the trinity and the immaculate conception. The other 3% just laughed at our interviewers.

      One can attack the 97% figure from one more direction: What about the remaining 3%? Because if 3% of experts claim something, I’m concerned! I don’t hear 3% of experts claim gravity doesn’t exist! Or that nuclear fission is a fantasy. Or that electricity is a mirage… I worry! What if the experts (however many % of them there are) are correct!

      The major problem with the AGW theory is that it is being used to a) destroy the sovereignty of nations via global taxes and other “agreements”; b) prevent worldwide industrial development and increased standards of living; and, worst, c) promote the cult of death of abortion/ euthanasia/ etc. These are the implications that bother people! As for a cleaner environment, showing the oil majors who’s boss, combating ultra-materialism (“consumerism”), and so on, everybody’s for that.

  7. Other then to have an online argument, is there really any point discussing the issue with Camron? He has his opinion (which clearly he is entitled to) which no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise. He has his own evidence which, whether or not you believe it is correct, he will never doubt. Its like trying to debate with Christians. Nothing you ever say or evidence you produce will change their mind as they have an unshakeable faith that they are right. Better to conserve your energy for more productive uses or to debate with people who truly have an open mind.

    • I suspect you’re exactly right, but unfortunately he isn’t the only one here who defends their barricaded minds with verbal abuse. Disinfo is a great source for unusual news, but a lot of the readers aren’t as enlightened as they think they are. It seems to me that many are interested in finding support for their unusual views and not in challenging themselves or learning more, and when they meet other with different unusual views they see them as sheeple and shills for the Enemy. The irony being that they’re just as blinkered as the masses, but they think they aren’t because they’re walking a different straight line.

      • “Barricaded minds” Is this because I pointed out to you where you were incorrect so your only response is to sulk of to a corner somewhere with a “side” conversation without actually discussing evidence. I take it is so because that is exactly what you have done here. If you like you can take the challenge I presented to Tal above as your own. Ready and willing to discuss evidence anyday. Sad little gossip hang outs and sewing circles are a waste of everyone’s time, well everyone actually interested in discussing the issue at hand that is.

        • I remember where you challenged me to find more info to back up my view, but where did you point out that I was incorrect?

          • Andrew, what do you want to discuss here exactly? The article or your opinion of me?
            Seems like you are only focused on attacking the messenger. How about talking about the message? I challenge you to discuss the message.

    • But Tal, what evidence are you discussing? It’s pointless to presume points if you dont’ substantiate them with anything other than you pejorative opinion yes? That is what you are invoking that I do, you know a strawman attack. Would you like to discuss the evidence? I’m all ears, present some “evidence” provide its source and walk your talk.

  8. I’ve read a lot of hit pieces on climate ‘alarmism’ (like many people, I find it fascinating), but this doesn’t really say much. Nothing about the cherry picked 12 year cooling trend. Nothing about the mis- represented medieval warm period. Not even the flat out lies that the poles are cooling. Some credit is due for the lack of understanding of carbon dioxide’s effect as a greenhouse gas I suppose. Chemistry is hard I know, but wikipedia is pretty coprehensive these days and I think all but the most illiterate are onto it.

    By all means, mis-represent science for the sake of your political beliefs. Infact, really… go on. Lean into it buddy. I’m all for the crazy. But please. At least but some effort into it. This crap is everywhere and you gotta raise your bar if your going to stand out amongst the noise.

    Why waste your time with this Sandy bollocks. There is some really convincing data coming out of the arctic at the moment. Surely there are some charts or science to be mis represented there? Just aim a little higher is what I’m saying.


Comments are closed.