News & Analysis
Global Warming Meme Powers Hurricane Coverage
Global warming likely driver for intense hurricanes, scientists say ... President Barack Obama says he's confident that state and federal governments have done all they can to prepare for the superstorm barreling up the East Coast ... As America's financial and political capitals braced for what the National Weather Service has called a storm of historic proportions, the subject that politicians here dare not mention has suddenly been pushed to the forefront of public attention by the massive power of nature. Both U.S. President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney suspended their campaigns Monday. Obama was at the White House where he was briefed on storm preparations. He said there is a potential for fatalities as the storm hits the coast. – Vancouver Sun
Dominant Social Theme: Definitely global warming!
Free-Market Analysis: This Vancouver Sun article is typical of some of the coverage of Hurricane Sandy, which hit New York City and environs yesterday.
It is written by William Marsden, author of Fools Rule: Inside the Failed Politics of Climate Change (Knopf). We looked up the book on Amazon, and here's a description:
This eloquent, rage-inciting polemic about the global failure to deal with climate change will appeal to readers of Tim Flannery, George Monbiot and Bill McKibben – and anyone concerned with the economic and environmental future of our planet ... In Fools Rule, Marsden illustrates how inefficient and short-sighted political negotiations have become despite mounting scientific evidence that immediate action is essential to curb the effects of climate change.
At the slightest sign of environmental catastrophe the doomsters show up and begin to write articles. Hurricane Sandy brought forth dozens of articles in the mainstream press speculating that the hurricane was a global warming event.
Marsden's article is especially good because it has all the hallmarks of a fear-based promotion. These are what we call dominant social themes, archetypes created by a power elite to frighten the middle classes into giving up power and wealth to specially created globalist solutions.
The Marsden article is typical of a controlled mainstream media provocation. The blurb about Marsden doesn't mention that his book is a polemic. The article itself poses as a kind of analytical evaluation when it is no such thing.
The headline is misleading, as well. "Global warming likely driver for intense hurricanes, scientists say ... " This is a strange headline, indeed. It implies a majority consensus of scientists believe that Hurricane Sandy was the result of global warming – now referred to as climate change.
But, in fact, the article can simply be read as statement that "some" scientists believe global warming is driving such storms. The implication, though is that a majority of scientists believe it. Here's some more from the article:
No scientist will ever say that one single weather event can be traced to climate change, a topic the presidential hopefuls have rarely raised in this campaign. But in the wake of last year's Hurricane Irene, which caused about $15 billion dollars U.S. in damage from South Carolina to Vermont, and given the steady rise in ocean temperatures as well as air temperatures, to simply dismiss Hurricane Sandy as a freak occurrence would be folly, Prof. Raymond Bradley, director of the Climate Systems Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, said.
In an interview, he said that with higher sea-surface temperatures, which are caused by man-made global warming, "when storms develop, when they do hit the coast they are going to be bigger and I think that's a fair statement that most people could sign onto."
He said he believes Hurricane Sandy "is going to be a catastrophe for New York and New Jersey."
His statements are buttressed by a new peer-reviewed study recently published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that concludes that higher surface temperature create large storm surges in cyclone activity.
"The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923," the authors state. "In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years."
In other words, global warming is causing more intense storms, Bradley said.
But, of course, there is no consensus on climate change. For every "convinced" scientist, there is a skeptical one. You'd never know that from articles like this, however. Here's an excerpt from a 2010 article posted at Climate Depot:
More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims ... More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report − updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus" − features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.
This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The publication of this paper and others at the end of the decade made it most difficult for the elites behind this meme to continue to insist on global warming as an established fact. In fact, thanks to the Internet, the debunking of global warming has been so thorough that even the rejiggered nomenclature – "climate change" – is rarely mentioned.
All of these memes are aimed at increasing globalist control and creating a pretext for legislative change and subsequent laws that expand government's reach over food, water and energy – the building blocks of human existence.
What's been encouraging about the past decade is the difficulty the elites are having in promoting these themes. Global warming, Peak Oil, even the war on terror itself have all come under fire as 'Net-based information educates people and debunks falsities.
Nonetheless, the propaganda rolls on. Questionable statistics, extreme opinions and falsified facts mark a number of elite memes. The mainstream media jumbles them together to create an appearance of consensus where none exists.
This article ends with the following statement: "Bradley said that some scientists believe that this high-pressure front from the north is a result of global warming, but he added that this is not proven."
Conclusion: This statement, of course, casts into doubt the rest of the article. No doubt they were hoping you wouldn't read that far.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Danny B on 04/19/13 10:57 PM
Here's the big banks saying that we have to stop extracting carbon because of global warming. Click to view link
"According to a report published on Friday, at least two-thirds of these reserves will have to remain underground if the world is to meet existing"
|
Posted by Danny B on 03/06/13 12:44 AM
Oh Great Bell, in interest of staying on topic, I'm linking a vid here instead of on a fresh thread. The vid is on global warming. It is a whole new facet; methane.
Click to view link
I haven't had time to research it yet. Possibly the elves can delve into it. The vid is definitely worth watching in it's entirety.
|
Posted by Danny B on 02/03/13 01:21 AM
Here's another refutation that is completely blocked by MSM.
Click to view link
Here's Fox still pounding the global warming drum. They finally admit that it might not be anthropogenic.
Click to view link
|
Posted by Danny B on 11/25/12 03:59 PM
The solar industry says that they will cool the planet for cheap.
Click to view link
Of course, that would make carbon derivatives obsolete.
|
Posted by Danny B on 11/13/12 12:21 AM
Dear Bell, I have a new meme for you. ICE AGE.
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks!
|
Posted by Danny B on 10/31/12 11:14 PM
ahh, you mention the Murray river. GOV has to cut back agriculture in the Murray-Darling basin. 40 million people eat OZ rice every day. How do you expect the West to starve out the East if OZ feeds them?
Click to view link
|
Posted by Craig on 10/31/12 07:29 PM
Danny B, I'm not sure as to the number of acres taken out of production via sustainability, environmental flows, carbon farming ect... but it wouldn't surprise me if it was in the hundreds million acres mark.
Take the water buy back of the river Murray for environmental flows, which will decimate the farmers on the NSW and Vic border. The fed gov bought back 2750GL and plan to take up to 3200 Giga Litres, which will turn Australia's veg, fruit and milk irrigated bowl into dry land crops and grazing. Apparently the Tasmania irrigation increase will offset this over time, though the extra transportation costs still adds to the bottom price.
Then you have the Green farmers converting farm land into native fauna and flora, from 10000 of acres in temperate rain forest, to 1000000 of acres in the arid cattle grazier land.
Then you have the annual reduction of farm land from degradation, from soil erosion and salinity.
Food price increases have gone up tremendously in Aus, say for a family of 5 back in 2000 it would cost $(AUS)100 to $120 to feed for a week. Today it's $220 to $250 a week.
This is only going to get worse in future.
|
Posted by Danny B on 10/31/12 10:48 AM
in·cred·i·ble/in'kred?b?l/ ... Adjective:Impossible to believe:
Dear Bell, You probably believe that I get carried away in my assertions that there is a depopulation agenda that has a lot of support. Famine is an age-old device for population reduction. It has always been the policy of England.
Click to view link
England and English banks have always been the drug dealers (and pushers) to the world. Famine is just one more tool for profit. Can't have all those useless wogs eating up everything in sight. During the Irish famine, all the CASH CROPS like grains were exported. The potato famine was a result of the potato blight. There was still PLENTY of food produced, like grains. Cash crops were exported and the Irish had to survive on potatoes,,,, which they did until the blight.
Reply from The Daily Bell
"You probably believe that I get carried away in my assertions that there is a depopulation agenda that has a lot of support."
Unfortunately, no. Good historical lesson, though. Puts it in context. Thanks.
|
Posted by Danny B on 10/30/12 11:56 PM
Craig, if I have my numbers correct, OZ took 243 million acres of land out of food production to comply with Kyoto accords. Various other countries have taken land out of food production also.
America took 80 million acres to produce corn-ethanol even though it is a proven energy loser. There is even some speculation that it is a part of a bigger effort to reduce food availability.
Click to view link
Now, why would anyone want to do that?
Reply from The Daily Bell
Incredible!
|
Posted by Craig on 10/30/12 11:09 PM
You know the PTB are in trouble when an unpaid blogger can debunk peer-reviewed Climate Journal paper and have it removed via exposing the complicity of the paid for scientists that cost the Australian tax payers $300,000.
A good read.
Click to view link
What's more this meme use to be called global warming, particularly in Australia due to the long drought we were in, from 97 to 2007, then the wet came back, so the meme was changed to climate change to cover floods and other natural disasters like cyclones.
The doomer reporters and paid for scientists go to far and make unreasonable predictions, like never to rain sufficiently to fill up rivers or dams ever again. Tim Fannery is famous for passing on outrageous claims, that make him look the fool and liar, as the weather and climate proves him to be.
This meme failed in Australia to, yet both sides of politics are determined to reduce CO2... Labor(our democrats) are determined to have a global legislation. The Liberal/Nationals (Our republicans) are more content to nationalise CO2 farming, and wait to even see if this further global government centralisation occurs.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks.
|
Posted by Danny B on 10/30/12 07:56 PM
For all you conspiracy freaks, here's a bit of reading;
Click to view link
There are dozens of relevant patents but, this one is most applicable.
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks,
|
Posted by navmagdale on 10/30/12 04:05 PM
"US Congress introduces bill ordering FEMA to conduct 'mass fatality planning'"
Here is the link :
Click to view link
Almost a week ago.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Wow.
|
Posted by victorbarney on 10/30/12 03:18 PM
As written in Hebrew-Inspired Scriptures(i.e., prove all things New in the Old Hebrew), which works 100% until you add "Jesus" added in the 1300's in Rome. Just saying... Hebrew-Inspired Scripture: "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall no cease" Genesis 8:8 or "global warming" concocked by marxism, who only tennet of speech is LIE, LIE, LIE, & then LIE some some. No? Read Karl Marx, I hope that he knew what he met? Iwonder if he started in Rome also? Your choice! Duh!
 |
Posted by Friend_of_John_Galt on 10/30/12 01:10 PM
The "Superstorm Sandy" is the "perfect storm" because it is a tropical hurricane meeting a mass of cold arctic air. If there were significant global warming, then the temperature difference (the heart of this giant storm) would have been reduced and the storm would not be so powerful.
The climate change/global warming mongers have started blaming every locally unusual weather event on "climate change." But good measurements show zero, nada, zip global temperature change for the past 16 years. Suddenly, their predictions are revised to say, "oh yes, we thought there were chances of this" despite the fact that reality has destroyed their original hypotheses.
This "scientific" claim, that "most scientists" agree to be true is destroying the credibility of science by ignoring that science has never been accomplished through consensus -- and that scientific consensus that occurred in the past have had a tendency to be blown apart by findings made by an independent thinker who ignored the consensus. All science is given lesser weight due to the obvious invalidity and hidden political agenda behind "anthropogenic global warming."
Sadly, by destroying scientific credibility, it leaves it open for the charlatans and mystics to persuade the general polity to pursue non-scientific and anti-scientific policies because the public's faith in science has been reduced.
You reap what you sew.
 |
Posted by ultraman on 10/30/12 01:06 PM
Boy, if I believed that the power elite could control the weather, I would say that this was a very convienient storm.
But who would believe such a crazy thing?
|
Posted by Bluebird on 10/30/12 11:59 AM
Sigh... global warming... it lives... still. Will it ever stay dead?
I just wanted to add that I duobt ANY scientists really believe this, not even the ones paid to spout it. And those numbers are really shrinking because they realize the average Joe can see they lack common sense to push such foolish "science". It is up to the media now to carry the zombie along. And of course political thugs still hoping to rake in thst green dough.
Good article, Daily Bell. Didn't this whole storm system seem suspicious to everyone else? It seemed like a planned event from the get-go.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We were going to write about HAARP ...
 |
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 10/30/12 11:58 AM
Oh, boy ... get this:
"A Big Storm Requires Big Government"
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Abu finds another meme ...
|
Posted by Danny B on 10/30/12 11:08 AM
YES, we are in climate change. It is driven solely by the sun. Here is an interesting vid on weather control achieved decades ago by an Italian.
Click to view link
He focuses on energy vortices. There isn't a prayer of understanding weather without understanding the sun. ALL the generally accepted models of the sun are completely wrong. ALL the current models project that the sun would be hotter at the center than it is at the surface. IT IS NOT. So, all the boneheads carry on with their models and ignore the HUGE discrepancy. They somehow believe that their models are correct even though a major part of the models is gravely wrong.
6 years after being proven wrong, they still cling to STUPID ideas.
Click to view link
There are alternatives being offered but, mainstream science rigidly looks the other way.
Click to view link
No matter how cold it gets, there are always idiots who are going to cling to global warming.
Click to view link
|
Posted by dimitri on 10/30/12 11:07 AM
(Almost) definitely geo-engineering, says Alex Jones. I, for one, don't discount it either. As Sandy's leading edge of high, wispy, hair like clouds came over Cape Cod on Sunday, 10/28, it was peppered with chemtrails placed in neat corn rows by countless aircraft. The spraying started a bit off shore and continued till out of sight over Boston. This was happening at the storm's northern edge, where it made that queer, almost 90 degree turn inland. Seemed like cause and effect to me. But the common man isn't programmed to understand stuff like this, is he?
