Hurricanes Blow Away Climate Change Denial

The startling landfall of two giant hurricanes – feasting on especially warm water off Texas and Florida – crashes into the climate change denialism that has been politically popular on the Right, notes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.

By Paul R. Pillar

The loss of respect for truth is one of the most consequential features of public affairs in American today. The roots and causes of this tragic development are multiple. The spread of social media and the related ability to spread untruths cheaply at the speed of electrons are parts of the story. Another part is the phenomenon of fake news (real fake news, that is, not alleged fake news that is really real news that the alleger doesn’t welcome).

Hurricane Irma as seen from space as it approaches Florida. (NASA photo)

The advent of Donald Trump’s presidency has taken this sad story to new depths. The President lies copiously, flagrantly, unashamedly, and far beyond what had been the norm for political fibbing. He has shown how a political career, rising even to the highest office of the land, can be built on lying.

Correctives to this awful trend are difficult to identify. The tribal belief system that prevails in most of the American population, in which people chiefly listen to and believe sources they identify with politically or socially and had already been telling them what they want to hear, is so well entrenched it seems almost impossible to overcome. Many people reject factual corrections as a form of bias and unfair treatment by sources (such as the “left-wing media”) with which they do not identify politically or socially.

The epistemological rut in which the nation currently is mired is captured by a cartoon in which a man wearing a Trump shirt comments on how the President has lied about jobs, health care, and other topics. When asked by the person on the next barstool why he nonetheless supports Trump, the man replies, “cuz he tells it like it is.”

Combating lies with counter-lies would not be wise. However much it might help to arrive at any one decision or policy that is better than the alternative, the larger effect would be to prolong and deepen the damaging disrespect for truth. One can shape arguments, however, in ways that, while still truthful, are better able to get through to lie-besotted masses than the most thoughtful and disinterested analysis would.

In that regard, the United States getting hit with two major hurricanes in rapid succession provides a teaching opportunity regarding the critical issue of climate change. Thoughtful leaders such as former President Barack Obama habitually issue the standard disclaimer that no one weather event can be attributed to manmade climate change. This sort of caution, while intellectually admirable, represents excessive reticence when considering what it takes to get through skulls and through information filters in the post-truth epoch.

Like Smoking and Cancer

Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who ran the Environmental Protection Agency under George W. Bush, notes not only that the basic physical links involving global warming, greenhouse gases, and burning of fossil fuels are “as certain as the link between smoking and cancer.” She further observes that ”a broad consensus of scientists also warn of the influence of the warming climate on extreme weather events.”

Hurricane Harvey’s path into Texas.

The overall connections, in other words, in terms of cause, effect, and degree of risk are unquestionable, even if no one case of lung cancer can be blamed on any one pack of cigarettes.

Focusing on the most recent tropical cyclones would not necessarily be the way a completely objective analysis in some other epoch would shape a disquisition on climate change. And focusing on Harvey and Irma would partly play to the otherwise unfortunate tendency to treat one data point as an event but two data points as a trend.

Politically, however, seizing such a teaching opportunity, in which there is an immediate physical impact even on many people who get their news from Rush Limbaugh, is a necessary while still truthful way to battle untruths.

Such a moment also places in especially stark relief the dishonesty, and related hypocrisy, of leading climate change skeptics. These include Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and other legislators on the right from his part of the country, who voted against relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy but now look to the federal government for help to victims of Hurricane Harvey, while trying to rationalize their inconsistency with the lie that most of the Sandy relief was not related to damage from the storm.

They include Florida Governor Rick Scott, who has used the standard cop-out of “I am not a scientist” to explain his failure to acknowledge manmade climate change, and whose lackadaisical policies in preparing for effects of climate change will mean additional suffering by the citizens of his state from the storm that is hitting them now. They include President Trump, whose EPA has put a former campaign aide with no scientific expertise to work in eliminating grants with the “double-C” term to ensure that climate change does not get studied with agency funds.

Without diminishing any immediate sympathy and support for those whose lives the hurricanes have upended, this is the time to shout from rooftops that dishonest climate-change-denying politicians are causing more such suffering in the future for Americans as well as others. And when Trump’s EPA destroyer (a.k.a. administrator) Scott Pruitt says that now is not the time to talk about climate change, the proper response is that now is an excellent time to talk about it.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is author most recently of Why America Misunderstands the World. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)

118 comments for “Hurricanes Blow Away Climate Change Denial

  1. Winstom
    September 18, 2017 at 07:28

    Nonsense, every normal thing is climate change. We’ve had storms worse than this in the past.

  2. hebgb
    September 17, 2017 at 18:28

    More BS, rhetoric, and sophistry to try to prove a case instead of using facts which are non-existant.
    How do a couple of hurricanes blow away something that nobody claims?
    Conflation, conflation, conflation… it ain’t just for the NYT anymore.
    Damn shame you are on the wrong side of this issue.
    NOBODY thinks climate isn’t changing.
    The only reason that skeptics doubt anthropogenic climate change is that there is no evidence for it.
    Why not start showing some instead of using tricks and tactics? Oh yeah, that’s right, because you haven’t any.

    • Jim
      September 17, 2017 at 20:28

      Your ignorance of the evidence doesn’t alter the fact that it exists. It’s simply a matter here of you proudly advertising that/your ignorance. Well done.

  3. Zachary Smith
    September 15, 2017 at 10:04

    My link isn’t about hurricanes, but rather the food we eat. As the Deniers endlessly say, plants just love Carbon Dioxide. There is one small problem with that – our food plants are beginning to produce the agricultural equivalent of “fast food”.

    Across nearly 130 varieties of plants and more than 15,000 samples collected from experiments over the past three decades, the overall concentration of minerals like calcium, magnesium, potassium, zinc and iron had dropped by 8 percent on average. The ratio of carbohydrates to minerals was going up. The plants, like the algae, were becoming junk food.

    And one other major issue discussed in the piece is the decline of protein as the plants churn out more sugar.

    Junk food, indeed!


  4. Jim
    September 14, 2017 at 19:16

    Would all the flat earthers please watch this and then please, just go away. As an American, it is embarrassing to see such products of our failing educational system

  5. Zachary Smith
    September 14, 2017 at 10:12

    Just saw a snippit on this topic which I thought was really funny. It’s an exchange between the execrable Ann Coulter and somebody named Ron Perlman.

    AC: I don’t believe Hurricane Harvey is God’s punishment for Houston electing a lesbian mayor. But that is more credible than “climate change.”

    RP: Ann, ANN, you’re supposed to take the anti-psychotic WITH FOOD! WITH FOOD, Ann!

  6. Alma
    September 14, 2017 at 04:46

    This article is just one more fact-free opinion piece used to bludgeon non-believers. How does this stuff get past Robert Parry and others there who have shown evidence of thinking skills? I would like to ask the author what changes he has made in his own life to reduce his carbon footprint. I have made quite a few in my life, and I don’t even buy the man-made line. Whenever I read a piece like this, I expect the above to be followed by something like “and this is the anti-pollution legislation we are currently proposing to congress” or, “and these are the punitive taxes we’re leveling on SUVs” or something like that. But it’s never about inspiring change. It’s always about browbeating people, offering no proof, and trying to shame them into submission. How did Americans fall so far?

  7. September 14, 2017 at 04:37

    This is more than climate change but has now evolved into Weather weapons controlled by the “lets say” Globalists who want to control the world population so they can establish their New World Order. When Nicola Tesla passed, the U.S confiscated all of his work and as we know he was ahead of his century creator who invented the HAARP system. We also know that weather modification was used in Vietnam and since then is in use today (Documented). The video I saw today from NASA satellites show that the Islands just off the coast of Africa have such systems that did with the help of water vapors create Irma and many more that we did not suspect. These new Hybrids do not behave like the Hurricanes of the past, I have been through many of them starting with Andrew and until now there was no front storm surge, but a Tsunami draw back of the the ocean. We need to know if the inmates are running the Asylum and why. thank you

  8. September 14, 2017 at 01:53

    Medieval thinking permeates this comment section.

    Any of you trolls read the link I posted that was hopefully to help see if any of the concrete walls erected in your brains blocking out the science could be shaken loose?

    Obviously not. Wouldn’t want to shake your caves, eh? So I’ll post it again for all you anti-science 16th Century types:

    If you cannot handle clicking on such a scary-sounding link, then here’s a couple that could possible help with your mental problems:

    I’m probably wasting my time but one has to try.


    The corporate ‘investment’ banks and hedge funds etc are stripmining the forests around me like it was the 1950s. Huge rectangular sections of mountains stripped bare in every direction. I’ve gone up the mountain roads to get closer look…complete and total clearcuts. Nothing left alive on entire hillsides except ten trees right at the crown of the hill so from a distance it doesn’t quite look like a missing front tooth in a smile. It’s fooling nobody.

    Less forest less CO2 being absorbed, less moisture and the soil dries out and blows away, more CO2 released into the atmosphere. Never ending cycle of death. Don’t look up the figures on loss of phytoplankton and zooplankton that are the producers of every second breath we take…it is enough to seriously depress you.

  9. wholy1
    September 13, 2017 at 22:03

    There certainly IS “man/criminal-gov-agent-made” climate change – it’s called “geo-engineering/environmental chemical poisoning”!

  10. Superman
    September 13, 2017 at 22:02

    The US have definitely destroyed the world’s echo system that is for sure but the proclamation that “Hurricanes Blow Away Climate Change Denial” is simply laughable. You’re in the CIA buddy (no one ever leaves) try to do a little research before writing something in stone. Example between 1900-1941 there were 41 hurricanes in the state of Florida between 2000-2017 there were 11. In Texas there were 26 hurricanes and between 2000-2017 there have been 6. Am I saying that Global warming is not real? No but to state that hurricanes are the end all be all that global warming is real is just pure jibberish. The data simply does not show that hurricanes are outpacing the early 1900’s. Why were there so few hurricanes between 1950-1999 when there were 25 in Florida & 13 in Texas? I have no idea. Get to work sir… I need some answers!

    • Superman
      September 13, 2017 at 22:05

      Correction. The numbers for hurricanes I broke down between 1900-1949 not 1900-1941. It is interesting when you look at the data tho.

  11. Hank
    September 13, 2017 at 19:39

    Glad you used the more acceptable term: Climate Change rather than global warming. We have had catastrophic events in the relative recent past. We likewise went through a long period without too many major storms. Irma weakened considerably when it went over land thus saving worse devastation. Those who choose to live on the keys are always at risk for such storms as those who choose to build on the sand adjacent to the oceans/seas. The evidence for past climate change is not disputed and the possibility of major changes must be considered. Given that mankind has polluted Everything, over populated the planet, removed vast amounts of oil (we do not know what purpose oil serves) its removal may make seismic activity more probable, especially combined with fracking. We have a “System” based on greed AND continuous Expansion of debt and consumption in a FINITE planet. What could go wrong?

  12. willem
    September 13, 2017 at 15:51

    Give it a rest. Every time there is a hurricane now, some Tool feels the need to say “See? This is because of climate change!”.

    NO–this is because of Nature.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 13, 2017 at 19:05

      What do you personally expect to be the result from the rapidly increasing CO2?

  13. September 13, 2017 at 13:20

    Wow. The anti-science Physics-challenged Medievalists sure came out in strength on this article! Same mental acuity of those folks that decided it was witches and their evils spells that made the Little Ice Age happen…so they tortured and burned thousands of ‘witches’ in Europe who made the bad weather.

    Well, I guess it worked, eh? The weather did get better. Until humans started digging up coal and burning it, then invented the internal combustion engine… Now we are truly phucked and anyone who remembers high school Physics can tell you why.

    Problem is there are damned few people who remember high school Physics, much less university levels. But these challenged folks can sure recite numerous phrases from bibles written by tribal sheepherders who thought lightning was thrown from the sky by a big pissed off male which was a couple thousand years before science actually got going but hey, what are ya gonna do when your cousin gets lit up standing under a tree to get out of the rain? Have to blame somebody, right? Like witches…

    Here’s a link for you challenged folk that I read just the other day that fits your cognitive problem:

    Irma Won’t “Wake Up” Climate Change-Denying Republicans. Their Whole Ideology Is on the Line.

    It is such a waste of time trying to talk to people who can’t understand the science (or won’t as the above link talks about). Why don’t they all go to…wherever their challenged ideology is more comfortable? Why bother ranting on a website like this one?

    It’s like talking to Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons knocking on the door. Nothing going on behind those eyes…

    How about all of you challenged people gather at one of those anti-science churches you revere? You know, an oil refinery. In Texas. There you all can pray for the poor benighted souls of people who do understand the science behind climate collapse/chaos/catastrophe at the Alter of Big Oil.

    And by the way, the term ‘Global Warming’ was starting to alarm people because it’s been pretty obvious that the planet is heating up rather…ummm…rapidly. According to the pollsters it was ‘agreed’ to change the terminology to ‘Climate Change’ because it was shown to be a lot less ‘alarming’ because, after all, the weather always changes. Of course weather is a product of climate but most people have never heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and don’t know the difference between the two terms anyway…

    Carbon trading is a joke as are electric cars and squiggly lightbulbs and solar panels. Not enough, not nearly. Should have started de-carbonizing the capitalist economy 40 years ago at least. Instead the EXXON scientists who were telling their bosses exactly this in the 1970s were censored and shut up and only now the documents are finally coming out.

    But then you anti-science types don’t really want to read those documents. Blows your joke arguments right out of the water…

    We are far beyond the edge of the cliff at this point it isn’t funny. None of us are going to enjoy this ride. Already aren’t.


    • Zachary Smith
      September 13, 2017 at 19:08

      I prefer to explain it as Global Warming from the increase in the atmospheric CO2 is leading to Climate Change, and this is not good news at all.

      • Evangelista
        September 13, 2017 at 20:40


        The explanation you need to look for, and discover, is why the “atmospheric CO2” (presumably you mean the atmospheric carbon component, since this term also includes methane = CH4) is increasing.

        A place to start looking is in a biological science book where photosynthesis is explained. Look for, especially, what photosynthesis removes from atmosphere, and for what that removal leaves, or ‘frees’ from molecular entrapment.

        In case you don’t have time, he answers are: “photosynthesis removes carbon” and “CO2 photosynthesis frees two oxygens for each carbon” and “CH4 photosynthesis frees four hydrogens for each carbon”.

        From this you should be able to reason that photosynthesis is instrumental in atmospheric carbon content reduction, and atmospheric oxygen imcrease.

        From this it is another short, and logical, step to recognition that the more photosynthesis you stop, or prevent, the less photosynthesis-cycle reduction of atmospheric carbon will occur, and, from that, the more atmospheric carbon will remain unconverted, and that for that the amount of atmospheric carbon will increase.

        Since green plant life photosynthesizes, the amount of photosynthesis reduction of atmospheric carbon component that occurs each solar day necessarily varies in direct ratio to the amount of green plant life that is alive and photosynthesizing. This means that if you reduce the amount of green plant life you reduce the amount of photosynthesizing and increase of atmospheric carbon is a diect and proximate result.

        Are you able to follow that? If so, you may be able to recognize why burning so-called “renewables”, which are defined “renewable” for being “regrowable”, reduces photosynthesizing and contributes to atmospheric carbon component increase not only by the CO2 (and CO=carbon monoxide) produced by the oxidation (burning), but also by the reduction of the destroyed atmospheric carbon recovering (oxygen freeing) photosynthesizing the killed plant life was capable of providing. Note that a tree a meter (three feet) in diameter and fifty meters (150 feet) high, producing a centimeter (quarter inch) of diameter growth thirty meters (90 feet) up its trunk each year is converting a lot more atmospheric carbon to organic fiber (tree) than a replant with a trunk diameter of one centimeter (1/4 inch) and height of one meter (3 feet). So, while you can “renew” (replant) ’til you die of oxygen starvation, it is going to take fifty to one hundred years for your “replant” to reach the oxygen freeing photosynthesis capacity the tree you killed “to be green”, instead of using a chunk of coal or quantity of oil or of natural gas (CH4).

        Check also where CO2 and CH4 come from, meaning the natural processes producing both. Among the sources you will find fermentation and decomposition. Yes, when plant life ‘destructures’ it ‘gives back’ the atmospheric carbon it converted to compose itself of. This means that when you distil alcohol, to be “green”, and decompose “organic waste” to be “green”, you are producing still more CO2 and CH4.

        When you use “fossil fuels” (including here ‘natural gas’) you are using up remnant products from previous decompositions: Primeval forests incompletely decomposed down to coal, primeval vegetations anaerobically decomposed to oil-sludge and methane gassed off from ancient anaerobic decompositions.

        Do you recognize why, if you are not willing to go without the heating, and cooling, and lights and energy-conversion supplied conveniences you “need”, including for traveling and posturing as tough in wars, you do better to use the millennia past provided “fossil fuel” form remnants of no longer photosynthesizing sources, instead of destroying the “atmospheric cleansers” living today around you, adding oxygen you need to the atmosphere and cleaning up the CO2 (and CH4) you blow out as waste from your personal digestive oxidizing that produces the personal energy your human animal life form needs to live (continue oxidizing) and move (to find more oxidizable ‘foods’?

        It ain’t the “fossil fuels” that are imbalancing the current symbiosis of Planet Earth, that your life form needs to continue its existence. The “fossil fuels” are just remnants from previous symbiotic balances which died for changes they could not adjust to (local, regional or planetary), whose remains, while decomposing, were folded in and trapped, which prevented their continuing to full decompositions. It is you, yourself and your billions of co-imbalancers, whose “re-making” of the planet activities are progressing, not in a straight line, but in an exponential curving one, toward more and more rapid progression to extinction.

  14. James R Coyle
    September 12, 2017 at 21:27

    Citing her? A well known disinformation agent from the EPA.
    Like Smoking and Cancer

    Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who ran the Environmental Protection Agency under George W. Bush, notes not only that the basic physical links involving global warming, greenhouse gases, and burning of fossil fuels are “as certain as the link between smoking and cancer.” She further observes that ”a broad consensus of scientists also warn of the influence of the warming climate on extreme weather events.”

    She also said the WTC area air was just fine to work in.

  15. Evangelista
    September 12, 2017 at 20:41

    Paul R. Pillar ends his article with the following: “…this is the time to shout from rooftops that dishonest climate-change-denying politicians are causing more such suffering in the future for Americans as well as others.”

    Readers should pause here and reflect what their visceral intellectual reactions would be were I to write in counterpoint to Mr. Pillar’s statement; if I were to state that Pillar’s perception of “Climate Change” is wrong, and state that Pillar is equally as ‘dishonest’ as those he denigrates ans “climat-change denying politicians”, or they are no less “honest” than he is, and that the whole “climate-change” controversy is hysteria and based on hysteria.

    All those who hold faith in what is bruited “Climate-Change” would define me a “Climate-Change denier” and refuse to read anymore I might write about the subject, assuming, and assigning my expressions to be ‘heresy’, or propaganda.

    The fact is, however, in real and actual scientific reality, Pillar, and all others beating the drum for “Climate-Change”, “Global-Warming” and “Climate-Science” are propagandists. I would not designate any of them ‘dishonest’, since they appear to be ‘true-believers’, honestly off on a whoop, carrying false messages inculcated in them by camp-meeting class preachers of the “Anthropomorphic Global Warming” Church.

    The scientific fact is that advocates for doing something about “Climate-Change” are more dangerous to Planet Earth as a human habitat that are the deniers who oppose them.

    There are two primary reasons for this: One, the advocates oppose using “fossil fuels”, and, two, the advocates advocate burning “bio-fuels” in place of “fossil-fuels”.

    Try to understand this: “Fossil-fuels” are products of decomposition: Bio-mass that lived in the past that has decomposed to carbon remnant. Decomposition is oxidation. Human burning of “fossil-fuels” is completion of the partially decomposed remnants of dead bio-mass the “fossil fuels” are composed of.

    “Bio-fuels” are composed of bio-mass that was recently living, that has been, and is, killed to turn into fuels. The difference between “fossil-fuels” and “bio-fuels” is only when the bio-mass component, turned from mineral to carbon by photosynthesis, died or was killed. The primary environment-effecting difference between “fossil fuels” and “bio fuels” is that “bio fuels” are produced by killing living bio-mass; that is, bio-mass that is still photosynthesizing at the time it is rendered to fuel. The stuff is also less efficient, requiring btu-using processing to remove water and make combustible, and the diversion of bio-mass from compost to fuel removes needed ‘humus’ component, easily usable nutrition elements, from soils, rendering the soils in need of artificial fertilizer applications. Artificial fertilizers must come from somewhere, which, if not currently decaying biomass will have to be previously decayed, meaning “fossil fuel” bio-mass…

    The process of “going green” is to rob Peter to pay Paul (except in the conversion of solar energy to power, not counting the manufacturing processes that make solar-panels and other components, which panels are made from– you guessed it, –“fossil-fuels”).

    The process of “going green” is also, worse, to rob planet Earth of photosynthesizing materials, bio-mass being produced by photosynthesis. A byproduct of photosynthesis, in addition to producing bio-mass, is freeing of oxygen trapped with carbon in CO2. Oxygen-using organisms, from fish to frogs to cats and dogs and humans and cars and jets, depend on free oxygen. None can use carbon-captured oxygen.

    So, do you see what you are doing to yourself and your planet’s ‘livability’ when you are destroying living atmospheric carbon utilizing plant materials, stopping their breaking of two oxygens from each carbon, so that you can oxidize (burn) the material’s previously freed carbon for fuel, instead of burning long dead previously partially decomposed carbon remnant as “fossil fuels”?

    you would not be doing any good, but you would be doing less to detroy Planet Earth as a “Climate Change” denier.

    Neither “greeners” or “deniers” are on a course that will maintain the environment of Planet Earth sustainable for oxygen dependent human life. Both groups are religious-fanatic believers in bullshit they have been fed, and have chosen to believe in and proselytize for. But the “greeners” are the more harmful to our Earthly environment: The practices the “greeners” advocate are going to bring us all to oxygen-depletion raptures and death or extinction quicker than the “deniers” doing nothing will.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 13, 2017 at 11:27

      The process of “going green” is to rob Peter to pay Paul (except in the conversion of solar energy to power, not counting the manufacturing processes that make solar-panels and other components, which panels are made from– you guessed it, –“fossil-fuels”).

      When I changed computers I lost my Denier list. It is presently being reconstituted.

  16. HpO
    September 11, 2017 at 18:18

    It’s one thing to say loud & clear, Paul R. Pillar, that “the basic physical links involving global warming, greenhouse gases, and burning of fossil fuels are … ‘CERTAIN'”. Which I’ll take your word for. But it’s another thing altogether to say even louder & clearer that there exists only “‘a broad CONSENSUS … [on] the influence of the warming climate on extreme weather events'”, such as Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Which I’ve always known the case to be. You, of all people, must’ve already known, then, that “CONSENSUS” isn’t exactly “CERTAIN[TY]”. Yet here you are glossing over that difference and distinction. And for what? Just so you can “shout from rooftops that dishonest climate-change-denying politicians are causing … suffering … for Americans as well as others”?! I get it, I get it; you’re frustrated being a mere “ex-CIA analyst” nowadays, who can no longer manufacture “CERTAIN[TY]” out of CONSENSUS for a strategic end, as in, y’know, the good old days.

  17. Curious
    September 11, 2017 at 15:31

    I’m baffled by a man such as Govenor Rick Scott. If I were in the media, or in a group doing a Q&A with him, when he would say he’s not a scientist the obvious rebuttal is ‘does NASA have offices in your State? Is it too much of an effort to drive there?’
    There is also a large military contingent in Florida and our own Navy has warned of the effect of climate change. To just make people take the words ‘climate change, or global warming’ off his web site and government documents he feels he’s solving the problem. For a Govenor who runs a state that is virtually a swamp, it makes no sense to not listen. Especially to the NASA scientists, some who have even protested causing their own arrest.
    Rick Scott is an astounding example of ignorance and a person with very little curiosity for facts.

  18. DFC
    September 11, 2017 at 13:13

    Yes, Consortium News does have an agenda. It is just parroting the CIA/ NSA / MSM corporate globalist agenda. While it is possible to control for the most part what the American people see, (why you would want to do that is another matter) this is not the case for what the Chinese, Indians and Trump Administration will see.

    One Chinese Coal Power Company Employs 4x More Workers Than The Entire US Coal Industry

    A fascinating comparison emerges when putting just this one company in the context of the entire US coal industry: with an estimated 326,000 staff, the combined entity will have a workforce that is four times bigger than the entire U.S. coal-fired power industry in 2016 (at roughly 77,000).

    The merged entity will account for 13% of both China’s power-generating and coal-mining capacity, according to analysts at Citigroup Inc. including Jack Shang, who pegs the new company’s totals at 221 gigawatts and about 500 million tons a year, respectively.

    “The ultimate goal is to form bigger energy companies that can hedge against market risks between coal and power,” Yu said. “Or they can sell their nuclear technology or their coal-power technology to emerging markets in Asia. That’s what the government wants to promote.”

    Sooner or later, “reality” will catch up to them. Assuming this gets through the Consortium News censors, I would challenge everyone to break free from the MSM echo chamber and start looking at the climate skeptic arguments. I can assure you the Chinese will do so before altering their energy intensive economy.

  19. DFC
    September 11, 2017 at 12:54

    In conclusion, as a PhD level researcher in the hard sciences, who was teaching AGW and Ocean Acidification a year ago, who would throw skeptics out of my office, things look “weird” to say the least in the field of climate science. I have come to the conclusion after Wikileaks broke in October of 2016. There we learned that there were no qualms about about rigging the American electoral process and that realization prompted my extensive review of climate science. I had to delve into blogs and websites that I thought were repugnant a year ago, whose authors I dismissed as freaks and hoaxers. A sampling of what I found I posted above.

    In 2030 China has committed to “de-carbonize” through the Paris Climate Accords. Whether they carry that through depends on the science being completely sound, if it is not we will see China (and India) using the same “climate skeptic” arguments to challenge their commitment to Paris and from my review of the current state of climate science, as it now stands, this will not be difficult for them to do, there is simply too much smoke, weirdness and inconsistency. Sorry to report this.

    • AnthraxSleuth
      September 11, 2017 at 15:16

      And, it’s a damn shame that this topic has been politicized for the only purpose of consolidating more power into fewer hands.
      Pollution is a real problem.
      Probably mankind’s 2nd biggest problem behind nuclear power plant meltdowns from an EMP. Be it from nuclear weapons or just a a burp from the sun.

      Good post Doc.

  20. mike k
    September 11, 2017 at 10:42

    The denier trolls frolic
    In the waves and floods
    And dance among the forest fires
    For nothing’s too grim
    To stifle their vim for trumpeting
    Their sponsor’s greedy desires

  21. Lolita
    September 11, 2017 at 09:59

    Agreed. Mr. Pillar cannot have it both ways: If climate change created these two hurricanes, then climate change also created the 4,000 + days without a major hurricane hitting the continental US…

  22. mike k
    September 11, 2017 at 08:15

    And the climate trolls drone on, as the winds howl, and the floods pour, and the forests burn, and more species are gone forever…… Guess who’s also on the extinction list…….??

  23. AnthraxSleuth
    September 10, 2017 at 23:41

    I just love how it used to be called “global warming”. Once that was easily dismissed by actual data it was renamed to the ambiguous term of “climate change”.
    What a hoot.
    What it should be called is POLLUTION!
    And Goldman Sach’s having their cronies in congress assign them as the sole arbiter of “carbon credits” will in no way solve the problem of POLLUTION.
    It will simply be another way for the .01% to control the masses in everything they do.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 11, 2017 at 01:00

      What it should be called is POLLUTION!

      I’d be interested to know what the devil you’re talking about.

      • Antares
        September 11, 2017 at 02:08

        It takes only one sciencist to deliver the proof, but one thousand to make you believe something.

      • AnthraxSleuth
        September 11, 2017 at 02:42

        You have no idea what pollution is; yet you post all over this board as if you are a specialist on the subject…
        Perhaps it would be best for you to heed the advice of Mark Twain.
        Instead of removing all doubt…

    • Jim
      September 14, 2017 at 19:12

      that’s a lie or an example of your ignorance, and nothing more. It was changed by the Bush admin at the behest of
      The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has “lost the environmental communications battle” and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

      “The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science,” Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

      But keep sayibng it like it ain’t so, no?

  24. September 10, 2017 at 22:00

    “While the two sides of the contemporary US climate debate disagree on many things, they are firmly united in their Manichean paranoia. Pielke describes this pathological approach to climate politics and why it matters. Pielke recommends five specific actions to improve political debate over climate. Changing climate politics won’t be easy and isn’t possible without a demand for change. The shared commitment to partisan battle between otherwise dueling camps of the climate debate is deeply held, and the siren calls to join the ranks on one side or the other is difficult to resist. However, rethinking climate politics should matter — not just for those who care about climate policy, but more generally for achieving the broadly shared goals of economic growth and the sustainability of liberal democracy.”

    • Zachary Smith
      September 10, 2017 at 23:05


      I researched your Pielke boy some more, and he’s kind of a one-note guy. Here is what he said in late 2016.

      “I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax.

      How much more “good guy” can you be than that? Except that Roger P. can’t leave it at that. Those damned “climate scientists” keep insisting there is some kind of connection with climate change and hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought! They are SO wrong to say that. Because of their obtuse evil in continuing doing so, despite his good nature and total understanding of the horror of climate change, Roger P. must hang out with Republicans and other Deniers.

      I’d sure hate to have to be in a university class under the instruction of a mush-for-brains character like him.

      • September 10, 2017 at 23:25

        “mush-for-brains character like him.”

        He relates a story in the video about how he was advocating for a carbon tax but was invited to speak on the republican side in a House of Rep panel and wound up losing all credit from the climate change advocates and in fact has lost jobs and been investigated.

        I think it is a pretty good speech in the video, where if he is not in the lions den, he is at least in the lions cub den

  25. Jim
    September 10, 2017 at 21:50

    Well the state of play today is why rightwingers got rid of the Fairness Doctrine and starting indoctrinating the dumb and dishonest into the pleasures and successes of shameless lying on talk radio and then Faux Views. Most of them now have so much face./ego invested in being ignorant “morans” on this topic (and countless others like wmds in Iraq) that their denial is deeply rooted in the Freudian ego preservation denial is.

  26. Jim
    September 10, 2017 at 21:26

    Everyone knows that hollow declarations only validate the hollowness of the head of those uttering them.

  27. September 10, 2017 at 20:46

    “Irma developed and intensified to Major Hurricane (Cat 3) in the central Atlantic, over relatively cool ocean temperatures of 26.5C”

    • Zachary Smith
      September 10, 2017 at 21:17

      Judith Curry

      Judith Curry is a climatologist at Georgia Tech, infamous for flirting with the denier community on the basis that some of them have “good ideas” and can’t get their contrarian papers published. For instance, she has posted on Anthony Watts’ blog, as well as Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn’t even read it in the first place.[1] This and other shenanigans led Tamino of Open Mind to say, “Judith, your credibility is now below zero.”[2] In short, she’s the Richard Lindzen of the South. Or maybe the Roy Spencer of Georgia, take your pick.

      Following a prolonged, public feud with Michael Mann, Curry got fed up to the point of teaming up with the Koch brothers, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the National Review against the aforementioned in his famed defamation suit.[3] All in order to defeat the ebil warmist gub’mint shill.

      Perhaps what has sparked the most criticism, more than any other one thing, is that she has invited McIntyre to talk at Georgia Tech. No, really.[4] This makes her a massive enabler.

      Some other stuff she’s been wrong about:

      Maybe the Heartland Institute isn’t so bad after all![5]
      The BEST team tried to “hide the decline,” because there has been “no warming since 1998.” (This was widely quoted in a Daily Mail article.)[6]
      “We should use the satellite data. It’s the best we have!” (Who else loves saying that? Oh yeah. Count Chocula.)
      (From the same Daily Mail article) “The models are broken.” She later backed down about this on her blog, saying she was misquoted and “had no idea where it came from.”[7]
      Murry Salby is right about CO2 and every other scientist is wrong.[8]

      This list could actually go on for much longer — just go to her blog for more info.

      Lots of links at the actual site.


      The woman doesn’t seem to get much Big Energy money. I suspect this is more a case of wanting to keep herself in the spotlight as much as possible.

  28. mike k
    September 10, 2017 at 20:42

    The more obvious the effects of global heating become, the more vociferous climate change deniers will become. Funny how armchair climatologists have all the ANSWERS SCIENTISTS CAN’T COME UP WITH. You can count on paid denier trolls popping up in publications all over the country now. Until they can get sites like CN shut down, we will be a regular target of their empty BS. My advice? Don’t waste your time answering them, they are not listening.

  29. Joe Wallace
    September 10, 2017 at 19:04

    Charles Gugins:

    “Everyone with brains” knows that what you’re trying to assert (falsely) is that climate change is a moot point in this discussion.

  30. September 10, 2017 at 18:48

    It’s your choice to throw the baby out with the bath water, Zachary, but the point is that he’s about the only person warning about geoengineering, and it is being done. Information about HAARP and other ionospheric heaters is available from many sources. This is not something that will be discussed by media or government generally. As for the “gem” that you cite on Dane Wigington, who said it and what is the context, anyway? It’s unimportant to me whether or not you or anyone else is concerned about geoengineering, but i mentioned months ago on another CN comment thread that the Air Force has a document from 1996, available online, titled “Owning the Weather in 2025”.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 10, 2017 at 19:15

      Dane Wigington. Could you kindly tell me what expertise that person has in anything?

      …but the point is that he’s about the only person warning about geoengineering…

      Don’t search engines work for you? Despite learning about good old Dane less than half an hour ago, I’ve known of “geoengineering” for years.

      Search terms – Geoengineering -dane -wigington

      About 567,000 results

      “A Sunshade for Planet Earth

      That’s from a 2008 Scientific American magazine. I have it, but had better not upload it.

      So LOTS of people have been talking about “geoengineering”. The piece could also be called a “warning”, for the schemes are as dangerous as hell.

    • Stiv
      September 11, 2017 at 17:18

      Angels Don’t Play This Haarp: Advances in Tesla Technology-Nick Begich

      A very interesting book, now 20+ years old but still worth reading.

  31. Zachary Smith
    September 10, 2017 at 18:25

    so-called “hurricanes”


    raise our taxes

    Amazing insights here.

  32. September 10, 2017 at 18:08

    Climate change is a fact of life on earth; the geological/paleontological record is clear on that. What’s also clear is that humans have altered the planet incredibly in a short time with super-industrialization. Approaching 8 billion humans on earth and continuing this experiment through overconsumption is a recipe for serious problems.

    These 3 hurricanes were, interestingly, spawned at the time of development of 2 huge sunspots that grew very fast and produced several coronal mass ejections. is a great website to follow solar activity. There has been research correlating earthquake activity with solar activity. Correlation is the key; actual proof on such complex topics is difficult.

    The first commenter stated unequivocally that these hurricanes were geoengineered, and that is impossible to state. But we do know that geoengineering is being done, and not only in the USA., Dane Wigington’s website, is a good one to follow on that topic.

    What is clear to me is that humans ought to err on the side of caution and acknowledge that extreme weather events and climate change, which we are clearly witnessing, should warn us that serious lifestyle changes for humans are in order, everywhere, and we should be heeding these warnings. Obviously many people do not want to admit that they must change how they are living.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 10, 2017 at 18:23

      Obviously many people do not want to admit that they must change how they are living.

      Unfortunately, a great many people will “deny” anything needs to be done which alters the way they are living. With assistance by the swarms of talented propagandists hired by Big Oil, Big Coal, and Libertarian Billionaires, they will continue with this to the bitter end.

      Regarding “geoengineering”, we’ve been unknowingly doing that since agriculture was invented.

      I looked up “Dane Wigington” and found this gem:

      We have close up photographs of these nozzles right behind the engines. At that point, the argument ends. We have footage of the crime happening. There is no argument or dispute–it is absolutely going on.

  33. Paolo
    September 10, 2017 at 18:08

    This site is filled with articles about the lies of mainstream media as regards international affairs: why should we believe the same media about global warming?
    But even if we do believe the global warming theory (by the way, why has science ended talking about believing, wasn’t that supposed to have to with religion?), this entire discussion would evaporate soon if we were offered explanations and proposals about how do we get rid of fossil fuels.
    All we get instead are vague notions about green energy, but never many hard facts. Why don’t we ever a good assesment of the state of the art of green energy? Could that be because it is mostly dreaming?
    How many know that Germany invested billions and billions in solar and wind energy but is now cutting all subsidies because they haven’t come up with viable solutions to the enormous problems they are confronted with?
    Finding solutions is what scientists should be doing, not asking us to believe in their theories.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 10, 2017 at 18:39

      title: “Germany nearly reached 100 percent renewable power on Sunday”

      That title is from 2016. Germany has reached a sort of saturation point with renewable energy and has sensibly stopped “all subsidies”. This is supposed to be interpreted as some kind of failure.

      ….this entire discussion would evaporate soon if we were offered explanations and proposals about how do we get rid of fossil fuels.

      Seriously, have you looked anywhere except Denier sites? How else could you be making such a claim.

      • Paolo
        September 11, 2017 at 02:56

        Could you please link that 2016 title about Germany?
        From what I understand, the saturation is reached in north germany on windy days when they have to sell energy abroad undercost. When there is no wind, they are left scratching their head and wondering how to cope with the closing of their nuclear power plants while subsidising wind mills that aren’t producing electricity because there is no wind

        • hatedbyu
          September 11, 2017 at 10:50

          wind generators are not able to be produced using only energy from wind generators.

          let that sink in for a moment.

        • Zachary Smith
          September 11, 2017 at 12:14


        • Zachary Smith
          September 11, 2017 at 12:27

          “Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022”

          The Germans are sensible about this. They’ve experienced Chernobyl first hand, and the clincher was Fukushima.


  34. September 10, 2017 at 17:54

    A very helpful article, even for those of us who are outside USA. The comparison with the cigarette smoking and lung cancer is an excellent way to explain the connection between climate chnage and the hurricanes

  35. Robert Golden
    September 10, 2017 at 16:22

    The duplicity of Trump on global warming is telling. When it comes to his business interests he is a believer, and a firm advocate of the science:

    When it comes to winning the fossil fuel industry & Koch Bros’s R party, global warming is a Chinese hoax. The problem, of course, is Trump is running the USA, and our interests do not coincide with the Koch Bros, Exxon-Mobil, and the coal industry. Keystone threatens the drinking water of 15 million Americans, and will send Canadian tar sands to Houston, a flood zone of toxic chemical installations, which is subject to more Harvey type storms and flooding. And most job growth is in green energy.

    On top of this Trump wants to cut corporate and .01% rich people’s taxes, after running against our 20T debt. Right before our eyes, taxpayers are on the hook for both Florida and Houston, at least another Trillion dollars. This madness is unsustainable.

  36. September 10, 2017 at 15:26

    Perhaps doing this might help “Climate Change.”
    [See link below:]
    December 1, 2015
    “The Climate Change We Really Need”

    • hatedbyu
      September 10, 2017 at 17:01

      nice blog post….

      great quote from it….

      “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it”
      H.L. Mencken

      reminds me to ask everyone to look into the club of rome and what they decided would unite humanity in the late 60’s…..

      or the terroristic scarmongering of john p. holdren.

  37. David Carrill
    September 10, 2017 at 15:07

    Whatever opinions are held by the public and the media on this issue, here are the statements on NOAA’s website relative to Hurricanes and Climate Change, which you can verify for yourselves. These are the statements that support what is empirically known to be true at this time:
    It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.

    2)In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic.

    Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST(Sea Surface Temperature) and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

    3) Returning to the issue of future projections of aggregate activity, while there remains a lack of consensus among various studies on how Atlantic hurricane PDI(Power Dissipation Index) will change, no model we have analyzed shows a sensitivity of Atlantic hurricane PDI to greenhouse warming as large as that implied by the observed Atlantic PDI/local SST(Sea Surface Temperature) relationship. In other words, there is little evidence from current dynamical models that 21st century climate warming will lead to large increases in tropical storm numbers, hurricane numbers, or PDI in the Atlantic.

    4)Finally, one can ask whether the change in Category 4-5 hurricanes projected by our model is already detectable in the Atlantic hurricane records. Owing to the large interannual to decadal variability of SST and hurricane activity in the basin, Bender et al (2010) estimate that detection of this projected anthropogenic influence on hurricanes should not be expected for a number of decades.

    • Robert Golden
      September 10, 2017 at 16:39

      Yeah, let’s wait a little longer before we jump to any conclusions. Let’s let a few more icebergs break off, and wait until ocean temperatures rise more. Maybe when Southern Texas is inhabitable, along with Florida we won’t have to wonder anymore. In the meantime the Koch’s and Exxon can own and control what’s left.

    • Robert Golden
      September 10, 2017 at 16:51

      From NOAA website:

      Overall, the current and predicted conditions within the MDR are consistent with the warm phase of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). The AMO is a main climate factor that influences the Atlantic hurricane season, and it sets the backdrop upon which other climate phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña overlay. For the Atlantic hurricane basin, the AMO has historically produced 25-40 year periods of generally above-normal activity (called a high-activity era) followed by 25-40 years of generally below-normal activity (called a low-activity era).

      The warm phase of the AMO has generally been present since 1995, and the transition to this warm phase ushered in a high-activity era for Atlantic hurricanes which began that year (Goldenberg et al. 2001)indices as to whether or not this latest warm phase of the AMO has ended. However, there is disagreement between two main AMO . The Kaplan AMO index shows that the presence of the warm AMO during the hurricane season (June-November) from 1995 through at least last year, while the Klotzbach-Gray AMO index (Klotzbach and Gray, 2008) shows a more variable AMO over the last few years. Both indices show that the June-November index has been generally warmer than the January-May index over the past few years, suggesting that the early-year AMO index is probably not a good predictor of its strength during June-November.

  38. Annie
    September 10, 2017 at 14:44

    This back and forth arguing get’s us no where. It’s true that no one event, or even many events like these hurricanes substantiate the reality of climate change, but it doesn’t matter. The majority of scientists acknowledge that climate change is a reality, based on their scientific findings, and as a teacher of science I have discussed this subject for years with my classes and continue to do so. For them, the deniers, it’s somehow become their religion that climate change does not exist. Just pay them no mind, because no matter what proof you offer they will deny it. Throughout the history of science there has always been this backlash and too often and from too many in the scientific community as well.

    • Joe Tedesky
      September 11, 2017 at 01:38

      Yeah let’s fix the darn planet!

      I like that. Seriously wouldn’t it be a good idea to have the world work towards supporting nature’s organic splendor? Do we need a disaster to do this? To me it just makes good housekeeping sense. Like your first bike, if you want it, you must maintain it. This is simple logic, not even a true blue scholarly philosophy of any kind, but a basic principle of good hygiene.

      Remember, as we argue the planet’s in decay, so let’s some fiddling around, and fix it.

      Liked your spirit Annie. Joe

  39. turk151
    September 10, 2017 at 14:40

    Please give us the scientific explanation of how it was geoengineered. There has not been anything in scientific journals, but apparently you hold the truth. After publishing your peer reviewed research, you should take the opportunity to go on a world speaking tour.

  40. mike k
    September 10, 2017 at 14:23

    I guess some folks think the overwhelming number of climate scientists are deluded fools with some hidden agenda that causes them to lie about the voluminous data they present. Such folks fail to consider that many of these scientists are risking their employment to tell their bosses things they don’t want to hear. Where is the vast network of funders compensating these truth tellers for the risk they are taking? We know of the multi-millions the Koch Bros. spent on PR for climate change denial.

    • hatedbyu
      September 10, 2017 at 16:57

      once again, look at history instead of the programming in the media.

      eugenics. many scientists involved. humanity is at risk without serious change. politicians and media enlisted to get the message out.

      and once again, vast overwhelming numbers of scientists. voluminous data.

      science is not consensus.

      • Zachary Smith
        September 10, 2017 at 18:06

        science is not consensus.

        Instead of all the bafflegab, why not a flat statement about global warming in which you might explain how you justify tossing Climate Science into the same category as Eugenics.

        Finally, why Exxon’s *hore Scientists must be given such deference.

        • hatedbyu
          September 11, 2017 at 10:12

          the flat statement is thus…

          eugenics was a science that has since been debunked but at the time was supported by many scientists. more importantly it was supported by the mainstream media of the time and especially the politicians. the measures taken by politicians worldwide led to the forced sterilization of hundreds of thousands.

          it’s why i referenced this in my opening reply.

        • hyperbola
          September 14, 2017 at 13:32

          The eugenics crimes in the US were supported by all kinds of “good foundations” (Carnegie, Rockefeller, …) and by numerous “credible scientists” at Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, ….. They are an excellent example of how toxic group think can be propagated in “science” and how that group think leads to criminal legislation. hatedbyu is right – you should study that case. Here is a starting point.

          Eugenics and the Nazis — the California connection – SFGate

  41. Antares
    September 10, 2017 at 14:18

    The whole text is supported by one argument only:

    “a broad consensus of scientists also warn of the influence of the warming climate on extreme weather events.”

    And it’s a fake argument. Science does not rely on consensus but on evidence.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 10, 2017 at 14:20

      Science does not rely on consensus but on evidence.

      At least you got that part right.

      But a person must wonder what you’d recognize as “evidence”.

      • hatedbyu
        September 10, 2017 at 16:52

        there is hard science……water boils at 100 C or 212 F.

        this was arrived at by experimentation and being able to recreate conditions that prove this consistently.

        there is soft science which many things fall under. tobacco science. monsanto science. gmo science, pharmacological science.
        this is where you can use the scientific method to prove whatever you want provided enough money is dumped into “proving” whatever you want.

        then there is theoretical science where you have people who have studied certain disciplines and come up with theories based on their scientific expertise. while that is called science it is not always provable.

        the big bang theory, evolution, psychology are examples of this. climate science is the later two at the same time. it is based on assumptions about how our climate is affected by human activity. it relies heavily on computer models. many of which have been proven wrong since the beginning of the “global warming” trend. the big problem is that you cannot prove or disprove, using hard science, whether any of this is real with our being able to have one earth with humans and one without to compare results. until that can happen, it will be debated. simple as that.

        science advances one funeral at a time – max plank

        it’s a great quote showing how wrong science can be at any given moment. science could prove that human activity affects our weather in the future, to a degree and i would even say that it’s possible. but history tells me to be a bit more skeptical.

        so i will. and i am trying to help people to see it in a different light.

        • Zachary Smith
          September 10, 2017 at 17:58

          No links.
          No titles.
          No “science” except for a single partially correct statement of no particular relevance.

          there is hard science……water boils at 100 C or 212 F.

          All I can get out of the heap of words is ‘try to think like a denier’.

        • Curious
          September 11, 2017 at 20:50

          Re: hard science. Water boils at a lower temperature at higher elevations. Your fixed “science is only under certain conditions. Water also boils faster with salt in it, though it is negligible.
          These are just two cases disproving what you consider “hard science”. Try again.

          • hatedbyu
            September 12, 2017 at 14:18

            point missed.

            like saying my inability to capitalize letters makes my argument illogical.

            i also didn’t mention altitude affecting the actions on boiling water.

            did i mis-spell anything?

          • LJ
            September 12, 2017 at 16:21

            Ocean level is not going to rise to a higher altitude. Ocean level is 0. Zero. The Climate Change models that predict increasingly severe Hurricanes due to increased surface water temperature in the Atlantic Ocean during Hurricane season will almost certainly be proven correct within 10 years. That’s not long to wait but you won’t care. By then you will have moved on to make up other excuses that mock your own existence . Why do you think that expressing the climate denial apologetics that you have brainwashed yourself into believing vindicates you in some way? Peace on it. You will probably live long enough to realize that you were wrong to wallow in predisposition and believe in things that you do not understand either from experience, analysis or logic . I probably will too but I will accept that I was wrong.

    • Joe Wallace
      September 10, 2017 at 19:18

      “Science does not rely on consensus but on evidence.” The evidence that climate change exists has produced a consensus among scientists.

      • hatedbyu
        September 11, 2017 at 10:47

        the evidence has not been peer reviewed by the consensus. only the belief.

  42. hatedbyu
    September 10, 2017 at 14:02

    group think at it’s finest.

    to understand how corrupt “climate science” is, all one has to do is follow the logic of how to “fix” climate change…..

    by trading “carbon credits”.

    but, leave it to bankers to come up with the solution.

    disclaimer….pollution is horrible and we should all do whatever we can to reduce our own hand in it’s creation.

    i have been following this for years. i read actual science articles refuting the findings of computer models predicting doom and gloom. but to no avail. al gore stated that the “science is settled”. and that’s been that ever since.

    just think for a moment about the weaponized term ” climate denier”. did you ever hear that applied to evolution? “evolution denier”?
    did you ever hear it applied to fluoride or vaccines? how about organic food? “fertilizer denier”? “gmo denier”?
    and is trading credits sold by bankers anywhere in anything else we do?

    this is a website where the mainstream media is routinely bashed for good reason. because much of what is reported in the msm is part of a larger globalist agenda. why is the worship of “climate science” able to sidestep this very important tenant to the same agenda?

    because programming works.

    rather than get in arguments about what “study” proves what. or doesn’t . i would offer history as proof. read ” the war on the weak” by edwin black. you will see that science can be swayed and bought. and that politicians and the media can be prodded to follow along with such zeal that you would be shocked. this is history “rhyming” once again.

    as an adjunct to that book, i would also recommend reading “the anglo-american establishment” by caroll quigley. although not about science. it shows just how the mechanisms of the media can be easily manipulated to reflect the agenda of those in power.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 10, 2017 at 14:18

      to understand how corrupt “climate science” is, all one has to do is follow the logic of how to “fix” climate change…..

      by trading “carbon credits”.

      If that’s all you’ve learned from reading all the non-climate books and “actual science articles” you really ought to go back to the starting line and try again.

      • hatedbyu
        September 10, 2017 at 16:36

        attacking the messenger is not a form of argument. use logic. not personal attacks. it serves no purpose.

        you are trying to use the appeal to authority.

        or implying that i am anti science.

        science is all about questioning. not consensus.

        if it were about consensus, the world would be flat and surgeons would not wash their hands.

        i referenced books that i thought reflected history in what we are seeing in the push for “climate change” orthodoxy.

        take it or leave it. i see parallels. sue me.

        • Zachary Smith
          September 10, 2017 at 18:31

          I’ll “leave it”, thank you.

          People who drink too much often see strange things. I’d never given it any thought before, but the notion that folks who read selected history books instead of science texts might “see parallels” which justify their Denial shouldn’t have surprised me.

          • Stiv
            September 11, 2017 at 17:00

            An easy method of proving your point, ZS, is to stare at a blank wall for an extended period of time….go “zen” with it…and one will see all kinds of things appear. Yea, getting myopic can be another form of blindness.

      • Jim
        September 10, 2017 at 21:45


    • September 11, 2017 at 18:21

      This may make you feel better hatedbyu. There is a solution to human-induced climate change. It is called nuclear power. And, it is also opposed by a group that is the flip-side of climate change deniers … anti-nukes. They are also immune to reason or evidence, but are typically on the opposite side of the political spectrum. It is just as pointless to argue with them as any facts will get in the way of what ‘they know’.

      • Curious
        September 11, 2017 at 20:43

        Well SteveK9, when you can present a valid argument regarding the storage of nuclear waste then some anti-nukes may listen to you. A 20,000 year fix is hardly a starting point. Hanford isn’t cleaned up yet and they don’t know how to do it since some of the sludge is so mucky and large it won’t fit into their bright idea of pre-injectors to then turn the sludge into glass of some form. If they jam, which they will, the building will untouchable for 20-40 thousand years and Hanford will just sit there seeping into the Columbia river. Or more recently, what did you think of the train cars stored there that had a cave in compromising the storage because it is all wood based from the 40s? Hundreds of train cars loaded up with nuke waste because they didn’t know what to do with it. Do you read much?
        If you need a more recent model how about Fukushima? Do you think our government will tell us the levels of caesium-137 in the ocean when the Japanese were told by the US at the start of the catastrophe just to drain the excess into the ocean. Bright idea. The burial site in the desert is clogged by a fire burning nuclear material so they can’t store there either. Maybe the anti-nukes have a point?
        So SteveK9, how about a solution to the waste product and then start a discussion that way? If you plan on solving it in 20,000 years, more power to you.

  43. mike k
    September 10, 2017 at 13:57

    Climate change deniers are like Holocaust deniers, evolution deniers, racists, religious fanatics, democrats, republicans, gay bashers – all of them will not change their minds from any amount of evidence. Arguing with them is a waste of time. All they want to say is, “I am right, I am right, I am right. Or You are wrong, You are wrong. You are wrong.” Reasoned arguments or open discussions are alien to them. They just want you to know that they are right and you are wrong; whatever you might say means nothing to them.

    • hatedbyu
      September 10, 2017 at 14:03

      “I am right, I am right, I am right. Or You are wrong, You are wrong. You are wrong.”

      sounds very much like you, actually.

    • mike k
      September 10, 2017 at 14:03

      Then why post on CN at all, isn’t it futile? No, there exist a small segment of folks who are open to new truths, and even willing to change their minds about their beliefs. It is to those valuable few that we speak, seeking to exchange insights with them and learn together.

      • hatedbyu
        September 10, 2017 at 14:17

        and by saying that those whose ideas are not in line with yours are not open to any other is somehow any different than your quote that i used?

        how do you change people’s ideas by name calling?

  44. Jake G
    September 10, 2017 at 12:42

    There are dozens of studies, even by IPCC, NOAA, etc, which prove the exact opposite. Hurricanes dont get stronger and dont get more, actually get weaker and less.
    This is just the usual hype of the alarmists, trying to exploit a natural disaster.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 10, 2017 at 12:48

      … dozens of studies…

      The poster forgot to provide titles or links to any of them.

      • Jake G
        September 11, 2017 at 09:33

        No, I just expect people who want to discuss this topic has a basic knowledge.
        But I see there are a lot of trolls even here, which means facts wont really matter to them.

        Anyway, have fun:

      • Zachary Smith
        September 12, 2017 at 11:02

        Title at Professional Denier Anthony Watt’s site: 30 peer reviewed studies show no connection between climate change and hurricanes

        Claim made by Denier Disciple: Hurricanes dont get stronger and dont get more, actually get weaker and less.

      • Roberto
        September 17, 2017 at 23:52

        The 1915 Florida Keys hurricane was just as bad as Irma, and worse. The only diff is that the Keys were not as built up or as populated or covered by media as today. Read up on facts, history and reality before you vomit your opinion.
        The 1915 date goes back some 102 years now, well before the Global Warming Chicken Little Sky is Falling ALARM by Al Gore, one of the worst energy abusers alive, or his best adviser, Maurice Strong, now deceased (*), look it up, bless your soul.
        While the 2017 “worst hurricane season” in 100 years presents no evidence of global warming, IT IS THE PROOF, all the evidence you need of the simple fact: the weather is cyclical and the current “scientific consensus” bunch have no clue.

        (*) Al G and Maurice S had a plan to corner the futures market on Green Offsets to make billions $$. Good thing it did not work.

    • Emitt Ime
      September 10, 2017 at 15:53

      eagerly awaiting your links, jake

    • Jim
      September 10, 2017 at 21:44
  45. Zachary Smith
    September 10, 2017 at 12:29

    title: “Big Oil must pay for climate change. Now we can calculate how much”

    pre-link: h**ps://

    No mention of coal. That industry may be bankrupt rather soon, and besides having no visible assets by then will leave a waste legacy which must be corrected by taxpayers.

  46. Zachary Smith
    September 10, 2017 at 12:07

    Fellow, I have a brain, and I didn’t “know” this. Never even heard a rumor of it. Where is your evidence? Hopefully it’s not from a Big Energy-Sponsored denier site

  47. Zachary Smith
    September 10, 2017 at 12:04

    The President lies copiously, flagrantly, unashamedly, and far beyond what had been the norm for political fibbing. He has shown how a political career, rising even to the highest office of the land, can be built on lying.

    Mr. Pillar references a NYT list of actual but trivial lies to prove that Trump is dishonest ‘far beyond the norm’.

    Yes, Trump is an ignoramus who wouldn’t recognize the truth if it bit him on the butt, but compared to Obama the man is a rank amateur. I’ll grant that Obama specialized in Big Lies.

    A very real advantage the dopey deniers have with the fires and the winds and the mudslides and the hurricanes is that it is quite impossible to directly connect any one of them with climate change. The pinheads use this to their advantage with great glee. Mr. Pillar’s example of smoking is a good one.

    The overall connections, in other words, in terms of cause, effect, and degree of risk are unquestionable, even if no one case of lung cancer can be blamed on any one pack of cigarettes.

    But the more a person smokes (or the more time he spends in the company of smokers) is definitely connected to his chances of having some ugly health effects he wouldn’t have otherwise had. As the world continues to warm the same is going to be true for the extreme weather events. We’re beginning to have “hundred year floods” and even “thousand year floods” with alarming regularity.

    Title Why extremes are expected to change with a global warming”

    pre-link h**p://

    It’s my personal opinion that the monster hurricanes are the least of our future problems with the ongoing climate change. I believe it’ll be the chaos introduced into agriculture which do the most damage. Our food crops have been fine-tuned to do well in small ranges of variation, and that’s not what we’re going to see in the future. My seeing armadillos and eventually fire ants in Indiana will be trivial side shows of the coming disasters. Hopefully there will be some local trees which are able to resist the influx of insects which couldn’t survive here in the past. My elms are dead. My ash trees are all dead or dying. The dozens of red pines I planted are almost all dead. A gorgeous grafted ornamental white pine is a goner waiting for the chain saw.

    The Deniers who smoke generally kill nobody except themselves. The ones Denying global warming are energetically working to kill life on earth.

    • Annie
      September 10, 2017 at 14:46

      This back and forth arguing get’s us no where. It’s true that no one event, or even many events like these hurricanes substantiate the reality of climate change, but it doesn’t matter. The majority of scientists acknowledge that climate change is a reality, based on their scientific findings, and as a teacher of science I have discussed this subject for years with my classes and continue to do so. For them, the deniers, it’s somehow become their religion that climate change does not exist. Just pay them no mind, because no matter what proof you offer they will deny it. Throughout the history of science there has always been this backlash and too often and from too many in the scientific community as well.

      • hatedbyu
        September 10, 2017 at 17:07

        if you are a science teacher you should know that science is not consensus.

        the very fact that you would use the word “deniers” speaks poorly of your understanding of your own programming. that and your understanding of the scientific community that does not agree with agw.

        it is a theory. not a fact. understand this.

        there is room for debate. but not if you disparage the dissenters to your dogma.

        • Zachary Smith
          September 10, 2017 at 18:46

          … your understanding of the scientific community that does not agree with agw.

          Dear Lord, but he keeps coming back to demanding respect for Exxon’s *hores.

        • Jim
          September 10, 2017 at 21:42

          the debate has long been over and agw is scientifically a “fact” and for all layman practical purposes, and just one denied by those lacking intellectual heft or integrity.

          The amount in the climatology community to which the “concensus” refers dwarfs that of the deniers, whose work is bunk and been repeatedly demonstrated to be such.

          Garbage is pretty much all that’s spewed by the flat earther community, and we sure as hell ain’t gonna be holding our collective figurative breath waiting for them to offer an explanation to replace the fact of the ghg one they deny.

        • Annie
          September 11, 2017 at 12:59

          I don’t hate you, but I do know when the vast majority, well over 90%, of scientists acknowledge the reality of climate change based on scientific findings I think I’m on the right side of this issue. I will not try and convince you of the realities on this issue, or inform you on how science operates. All I will say is read the evidence and put your own bias aside when you do. When a scientist states something as theory, that doesn’t mean it is some kind of wild guess, but substantiated by scientific findings, and in the case of climate change there is a whole lot of scientific evidence to support it.

        • BJC
          September 11, 2017 at 16:48

          There is a broad consensus reached within the scientific community and despite your condescending trolling, that does mean something. You’ve likely not read any of the IPCC reports. The existence of alternate or dissenting opinions does not disprove climate change (or didn’t you learn that from all your you-tubing?). People, today, actually believe the world is flat and have fashioned a fairly extraordinary and ridiculously convoluted theory to support that (the satirists aside) – does the mere presence of their opinion redefine the shape of our world? I think not. I have nothing but contempt for intellectually incurious people such as yourself – you throw around the term dogma, but really, it is your faith and adherence to your dogma that keeps you willfully in the dark. That’s a lot of pretending not to see and ignoring the obvious to keep the faith of the denying zealot. At the end of the day, however, your opinion means nothing and is worth no more, no less, than a flat-earth enthusiast.

        • September 11, 2017 at 18:13

          I am a Scientist and was going to write you a short response, but there are plenty of good ones below.

        • Boone Pickens
          September 13, 2017 at 09:16

          Me thinks the Big Bang was caused by Man, Certainly the American Man. Science is Hypothesis , then Prove the Hypothesis with data.

          Paris Climate Accord allowed China, India and Mexico to INCREASE their emissions while the US had to go to energy levels around 1990 with current population! More American factories will move to those signer countries further ruining America’s industrial base.

          And have hardly an effect on average temperature according to their own biased and fudged software models. And paid for by the US Government!

          One must follow the money and learn the politics to understand the propaganda.

          The politics are striking. Al Gore and his Wall Street counterparts pay for articles like this.

      • Zachary Smith
        September 11, 2017 at 01:24

        For them, the deniers, it’s somehow become their religion that climate change does not exist. Just pay them no mind, because no matter what proof you offer they will deny it.

        Unfortunately you’re exactly right. Try to talk to a devout Fundie about Adam and Eve, or the Flood, or the Exodus. It’s a total waste of time, too. When they must choose between their religion and the history/biology/physics from the textbooks, they’re going to go with the religion.

        Not that it really matters what the PFC – level deniers believe. As we’ve seen in so many other areas, the Power Elites do what they please. For reasons known only to themselves those Elites don’t feel threatened by the coming chaos. Otherwise there would be serious faction fights between them. Since they all feel secure, nothing is being done. The way to bet is that nothing will be done. Not in time, anyway.

        I do hope I’m wrong about all that.

  48. Joe Tedesky
    September 10, 2017 at 11:54

    Sometimes when I’m at my most frustrating moment of understanding mankind, I think to myself, why even study history, we humans never seem to learn anything from it. Don’t get me wrong history is my favorite subject, but why do we go on continually ignoring what came before us, and do something about it? I mean from the time of our ancient ancestors, to our great great grandparents, to our parents, then us, and to our children, and our children’s children, and beyond, do we not end all war, or why ignore the fact that each generation of the last 100 years has had less and less of a healthy ecology, as we keep wrecking our earth’s environment as if we didn’t know better?

    When I look at the landscape of our American oceanic beaches all I see is a gaggle of high rise buildings littering our beautiful shore lines. After the cluttered beaches, comes the over packed real estate with its concrete and asphalt lined streets eating up every other piece of God’s green earth, leaving nothing much in the way of earth’s nature to thrive on.

    I think man is here on earth for the time it will take to ruin what’s been provided for us by nature, and then mankind will go the way of the dinosaurs. So history will be something to cry over, instead of it being something to learn from, and to go forward with a better plan.

    Read this about google.

  49. hyperbola
    September 10, 2017 at 11:51

    Uncertainty about the Climate Uncertainty Monster
    by Judith Curry

    The many dimensions of the climate uncertainty monster.

    Bret Stephens’ climate change op-ed of several weeks ago Climate of Complete Certainty spawned a number of articles related to uncertainty and climate change.

    Andy Revkin’s article in response was titled There are lots of climate uncertainties. Let’s acknowledge and plan for them with honesty. Revkin even mentions the Uncertainty Monster and Jeroen van der Sluijs.

    While the Uncertainty Monster (or Mr. T) should be pleased at the mentions, there are numerous misconceptions among those that are trying to give climate uncertainty its due attention.

    Let’s take a look at some of these issues…..

Comments are closed.