E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMSNBC's Thomas Roberts talks to Chris Hayes, host of "Up with Chris Hayes" about the impact of Hurricane Sandy and talk of climate change.
The climate change issue has been virtually a non-issue during the presidential campaign — but it's primed to take a higher profile after the elections, in part due to Hurricane Sandy's horrific aftermath. At least that's the view of Shawn Lawrence Otto, one of the founders of ScienceDebate.org and author of "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science of America."
Otto focused on climate politics during Wednesday night's installment of "Virtually Speaking Science," a talk show airing online and in the Second Life virtual world. You can hear an archived version of the hourlong program, hosted by yours truly, via the BlogTalkRadio archive or iTunes.
Hurricane Sandy already has re-energized the debate over the global effects of escalating greenhouse-gas emissions.
On one side, experts point to the fact that this season's warmer seas helped the storm keep up its strength as it moved northward, and that higher sea levels added to the strength of Sandy's storm surge. Such conditions are expected to be more common if current climate trends continue. On the other side, skeptics point out that Sandy's strength was in line with extreme storms of the past. For more on the back-and-forth over Sandy specifically, check out this posting by Columbia Journalism Review's Curtis Brainard and this one by Dot Earth's Andrew Revkin — and be sure to follow the Web links.
Otto sides with those who believe Hurricane Sandy will bring the climate debate back into the spotlight.
"I do think that, moving forward, it may be a watershed moment, so to speak," Otto told me on "Virtually Speaking Science." However, he acknowledged that the same claim could have been made for Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which didn't end up moving the dial appreciably on attitudes toward climate change.
Hurricane Sandy may not make voters more amenable to cap-and-trade schemes or a carbon tax, but it's more likely to highlight the flip side of climate policy: how to adapt to potential impacts and encourage climate-conscious innovation. More people are talking about the cost vs. benefit of storm surge barriers for the New York metro area, for example. Insurers may add disincentives for coastal development, in anticipation of higher sea levels or more frequent extreme storms. The federal government may provide more support for energy technologies that cut back on greenhouse-gas emissions.
That's basically GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's strategy on the climate issue. In his response to ScienceDebate.org's questionnaire, he said he favored "robust government funding" for research into low-emission, high-efficiency industrial technologies. He maintained that this kind of "No Regrets" policy would benefit America "regardless of whether the risks of global warming materialize, and regardless of whether other nations take effective action."
President Barack Obama, meanwhile, has long championed the development of renewable-energy technologies as a way to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, even if such efforts have occasionally gotten him into trouble. An example of that is the controversy over Solyndra, a solar-panel company that went bankrupt after receiving more than a half-billion dollars in government-backed loans.
Otto speculates that Obama may have a freer hand to pursue climate initiatives if he wins a second term — and that post-Sandy reconstruction may serve as a rallying point for political allies.
There's some evidence this is already coming to pass: Just today, New York City's independent mayor, Michael Bloomberg, cited the climate challenge and the lessons from the superstorm as reasons for endorsing Obama.
"The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast – in lost lives, lost homes and lost business – brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief," Bloomberg wrote. "Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be – given this week's devastation – should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action."
Bloomberg said Obama was taking major steps to reduce carbon emissions, while Romney abandoned "the very cap-and-trade program he once supported."
The mayor's endorsement probably won't have much impact on the vote in New York, a state that's as solidly in Obama's column as any state could be. But does it hint at a major change in the political climate?
For more food for thought, watch this archived video from a Capitol Hill debate between Obama surrogate Kevin Knobloch and Republican Mike Castle, who served two terms as Delaware governor and nine terms in Congress. The debate, titled "After Sandy: Climate Change, Science and the Next Four Years," was moderated by Otto and Climate Desk Live's Chris Mooney.
Update for 8:30 p.m. ET: The Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg sees deep significance in Bloomberg's endorsement, suggesting that it "turned climate change from liability into a potentially winning political issue in this presidential election," and may embolden Republicans who secretly support action on the climate issue to "come out of the closet." Do you agree? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
More from 'Virtually Speaking Science':
- Sean Carroll on what lies beyond the Higgs boson
- Alan Stern on the Uwingu mystery space venture
- George Djorgovski on the future of immersive virtual reality
- JPL's Dave Beaty previews Curiosity's mission on Mars
- SETI Institute's Seth Shostak about aliens and UFOs
- Paul Doherty on solar eclipses and the transit of Venus
- Veronica Ann Zabala-Aliberto on spaceflight and Yuri's Night
- JPL's Dave Beaty on the search for life on Mars
- Shawn Lawrence Otto on science and politics
- Ig Nobel impresario Marc Abrahams on silly science
- Rocket scientist Robert Zubrin on Mars exploration
- Propulsion expert Marc Millis on interstellar spaceflight
- Sean Carroll on the puzzling frontiers of physics
- Rand Simberg on the private-enterprise vision for spaceflight
- Martin Hoffert on the future of energy policy
- George Djorgovski on science in virtual worlds
- Alan Stern on suborbital research and NASA's mission to Pluto
- Col. 'Coyote' Smith on the outlook for space solar power
- Tim Pickens on rocket ventures and the Google Lunar X Prize
"Virtually Speaking Science" is hosted in Second Life by the Caltech Virtual Astronomy Group. The Exploratorium's Paul Doherty will be my guest on Dec. 5 for a VSS program looking back at the year's astronomical highlights and looking ahead to 2013.
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Climate Change will no longer be ignored. The Earth has been sending us signals for a long time and now the 770 companies and interest groups that hire more than 2300 lobbyists to prevent any US policy action on climate change might be losing the battle. We spend more on subsidizing coal and oil, than we do on tackling climate change! It's perverse.
UNICEF produced a very interesting video debate on this, also with expert written commentaries, etc.
One could also look at this from a religious perspective. Think of how many times some say God Bless America! Oh how we are proud of America! Then have you noticed what utter disrespect, outright lies, vitriole and hatred have been aimed specifically at our president from the so called "Christian team" aka republicans. They, including Romney, and him bigtime, think they can lie about Jeep and everything else and then say we weren't lying someone is making that up when the evidence is right in front of our noses. Do they think God is just going to reach down and say good job baby? I think they need to get their Bibles out and check say Proverbs 6, verses 16-19. And then when they have Ayn Rand supporters like Paul Ryan and Alan Greenspan of 1987-2006, do they think God is just going to reach down and say good job baby? Romney et al needs to realize there are consequences for those lies! It astounds me that more Americans are not up in arms about the acceptance of lies just rolling off of someones tongue. Because that is what politicians do. No it isn't. At least to that extent. I find it appalling as God probably does too. Romney, God is keeping track of everything you say down to the very last detail. And he is paying attention and not going to overlook it even though you claim to be republican and religious as if that should get you a pass.
LOL. If anyone really believes we puny humans have any control over hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. I have a boardwalk in Atlantic City I will sell you.
Really? No, really. Seriously, you greenies think that putting less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which trees turn into oxygen) would have changed this storm? (Hey, quick: why is Greenland, a very cold place, called Greenland? Because at one time the place was green. DUH. Global warming millions of years ago? Hmmm).
Here's something we should do to really change the weather: blow up the moon. Yes, that's right, blow up the moon. Doggone thing causes all kinds of havoc and gee, we're so good at running things here who needs it?
Talk about hubris (and stupidity).
Congratulations, you would have gotten a C in 3rd grade Science. Yes, carbon dioxide is used by plants, but at the rate we're pumping it into the atmosphere would be equivalent to you trying to drink water from a fire hose. Oh, and by the way, there are less plants on the planet - try looking up what we're doing to rain forests.
You know, in a few seconds you could have looked it up before posting your ignorance for all to read:
http://ancientstandard.com/2010/12/17/how-greenland-got-its-name/
how long have you been a climate scientist?
really george, how long?
yes goerge, talk about stupidity.
Law of Unintended Consequences: we have no idea what we're doing when it comes to most anything - so what makes us think we can 'run' the weather?
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/03/11/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-global-warming-iteration-437834/
Yet another problem with biofuels, the ones that are supposed to be cleaner and help stop global warming. I haven’t seen any reports yet, but I’m sure that part of the rise in food prices will be traced back to the fact that food crops, both those directly supplied to the consumer and those used to feed animals, are being diverted to biofuels, driving prices up everywhere else.
http://www.thegwpf.org/green-anti-nuclear-hysteria-and-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/
http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/~ren/phy102ren/Ch19-sfr-09.pdf
http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrcarter/consequences/
somebody got electricity right. 1000s of other things too.
George is half right about Greenland, not because it was once green, but because it was deliberately misnamed to fool people into not going to Iceland, where the elite had found a comfortable life and didn't want to share it with newcomers.
Kind of like Al Gore, who fools people into reducing their carbon footprint so he can continue to live in luxury.
I fail to see how a CATEGORY 1 hurricane is extreme. The left will grab anything to institute it's big government agenda. Cant wait until we hear about a tropical depression being a sign of man-made global warming. How bout a cool breeze.
cheapwhore, you are delusional. that puny cat 1 you moan about was 900 miles in diameter and kicked the shi=t out of new jersey. need proof? i thought you did. cat 1s are a lot meaner than they used to be. look at the last few cat 1s to hit the US. they are changing.
Nice, name calling. It wasn't just a cat 1. It was a combination of the hurricane and the noreaster coming together along with high tide and the slow speed of the hurricane. Let me guess, man made global warming is causing more hurricanes to collide with noreasters right at high tide and also slowing down the hurricanes so they cause more flooding.
Common sense should tell you that millions of people driving ( and China will produce in the next ten years millions more) is not good for you! Keep making babies and driving ...Jesus is gonna come back and save us from ourselves! Peak oil was in the mid seventies. The result of the internal combustion engine has been the ability to produce more food than ever before in the history of this planet! As a result in the last hundred years we have produced more people! This however is unsubstantial. If we all stopped driving last week...and ONLY used the petroleum for the tractors and combines and pesticides to produce that food and get it to market...we MIGHT have ten or fifteen years of petroleum left to do it! That in NO way addresses the "acid rain" problem that is a by product of our driving and bad for crops! Neither does it address the fresh clean water problem that we need for drinking, sanitation and growing those crops! But hey...."don't worry about it"...Jesus is gonna come back and save us from ourselves....right...right...keep looking the other way and counting on your rosary...while listening to the capitalist profiteers running this country while burning the candle at both ends! Fact...your babies are gonna starve, die of thirst or the plagues that lack of sanitary clean water will produce...or choke on your exhaust fumes if not your hypocrisy!
Mr. Boil... a kind of global warming is happening because there is too much hot air flowing from government and you, our beloved (if not wholly distrusted) main scream media.
you keep me in stitches. think of some more sh****it
Oceanfront property is not as attractive as it used to be.
The republicans live in the bible/corn/rustbelt though so they'll be fine.
What about all the hurricanes in 1950 ? Was global warming a concern then? 1950 is the holder of the record for the most systems of such intensity in a single season. One storm, the twelfth of the season, was unnamed and was originally excluded from the yearly summary. The large quantity of strong storms during the year yielded the highest seasonal accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) of the 20th century, and 1950 held the seasonal ACE record until broken by the 2005 .. Whenever big storms hit people start looking for a reason that's bigger than the storm itself. Storms are storms and over time they get to almost everyone,,
Look to my post, #62
I'll shoulder the blame for this NATURAL disaster for all of my years of using asthma inhalers which apparently contributed to ozone depletion.
We've always had large storms that cause massive devastation. A lot of people like to refer to them as once in a century storms. But do you notice that these once in a century storms are starting to happen every couple of years? Or that the average number and intensity of storms has been increasing steadily? Even more telling, have you noticed that throughout history the masses have been proven wrong on every single one of their long held beliefs by the scientific community? Weather it's gravity, the earth going around the sun, the stars in the sky, etc, the masses have always clung to religiously approved beliefs over scientific proof.
Superstition has now taken over science. We are no different than our ancestors. We continue to rattle bones in ignorance. If only those so taken with their superstitions didn't get so zealous and descend upon the heathens with Force.
Bloomberg deserves credit for getting serious on climate change? Please.
If you truly believe that man plays a major role in creating or hastening climate change, and can do something to keep the earth at the temperature we've come to enjoy, then you'd better get serious about what needs to be done.
It's not driving hybrid cars, it's riding bicycles. It's turning off air conditioners for good. It's not building and rebuilding homes on the water's edge, in a fish bowl, on an island (such as New York) in the desert or on a volcano and expecting the planet to accommodate us. It's about ruthless population control, maybe even forced abortions. And it's not just making these changes in one or two countries, it will require a global effort, maybe even a few wars to convince people to change their ways.
Who's ready to get serious about stopping climate change? Nobody. So stop patting yourself on the back because you and a few politicians are willing to give lip service to saving the planet.
Here we go again on Climate Change. And the U.S. is taking the heat for it. Not China where you can't see two blocks ahead of you because of the Polution in the air. Not Japan where you have to wear a face mask twenty four hours a day. Not Russia where the air is as bad as China. South Korea, Thialand, India, etc. etc. No, it's the U.S. that they want us to think that is responsible for it all. The storm was a Freak of nature, no more no less.
I don't know where you get the idea that just the US is taking heat for climate change. Must be another right-wing talking point because that's not the view of the scientific community. We're not in China or any of those other places though. Right-wingers like to talk a good game about America leading the rest of the world by example, yet they come up with all of the reasons in the world to take a backseat and follow along at the end of the line. Oh well, you're just doing what humans have done throughout history on every topic.
I don't know what your complaint is. Who is saying that the U.S. is responsible for emitting all of the greenhouse gasses? I don't know of one credible study that asserts such a thing. The U.S. is second to China in total greenhouse gas emissions. On a per capita basis, the U.S. is ranked twelfth in greenhouse gas emissions.
Thailand is a small country, and will never approach the other countries you mentioned when it comes to total output of airborne pollutants. The air quality in Japan is no worse than the U.S.
I'm not sure what you're worried about. The global economy relies on fossil fuels, so there's no way that we won't continue to extract and use carbon based resources such as oil and natural gas and coal. A future of reliance on carbon resources is assured, regardless of air pollution or rising sea levels.
Some may bemoan the effects of climate change and rising sea levels, but that's not going to stop us from using oil. Quite simply, there is no way to replace the petroleum based economy, even if we wanted too. Without oil there would be no electronics, and we know how impossible it would be to live without the latest product from Apple.
I do believe the climate is changing, but I can't say that it is from fossil fuel use. The data isn't there to draw that conclusion. People have not been here in this country long enough to record enough data for a accurate forecast on the effects of fossil fuel use and climate change. As the earth undergoes the change in magnetic fields the climate will change! But Cap and Trade will not change that!
The east coast was hit by THREE Cat 3 hurricane in 1954, one of them Hazel which like Sandy hit during a full moon and approaching cold front. Hazels storm surge was 15-18 feet.
From 1954 to 1960 the east coast was hit by 6 hurricanes, all but one were powerful Cat 3's.
Then there is the 1821 New York hurricane that raised the tide 13 feet in one hour and the 1938 New England hurricane that was a Cat 3 and killed 600 people.
And people are trying to say that tropical storm Irene in 2011 and Cat 1 Sandy in 2012 is somehow out of the ordinary?
What makes three Cat 3's in 1954 normal but a tropical storm and Cat 1 in 2011-2012 man made?
here is the reality - the GOP for profit and bottom line reasons started a campaign of denying and debunking global warming as far back as 40 years ago - and now , now that all the predictions and claims of science are here WHAT , what do you think the naysayers are goig to say, we were wrong and now we are responsible for the downfall of the human species ........... well no of course not they will continue to do what they know how to do lie , lie, deflect , deny , lie and deflect some more, some will probably stoop so low as to claim they never denied climate change at all - funny thing about money it makes you do things you dont want to do -
Katrina had more impact on Romney's "47%" than any other demographic.
Sandy was another matter entirely- striking at the heart of wealth along the entire eastern seaboard.
I expect a bigger kerfuffle as a consequence.
Regardless: too little, too late.
We're past the tipping point- methane hydrates are thawing out all over the world.
If you don't know what that means, then global warming is not a topic you should be discussing.
Actually NYC contains more of that 47% than the entire state effected by Katrina. That 47% is the number of generational welfare citizens who think the world owes them something for the ability to breath twice in a row, the remnants of the working middle-class clintons "new economy" destroyed as well as foreign nationals who legally can not work but still are eligible for social services. You are correct about the methane hydrates. The climate has been warmer in the past and colder in the past just in recorded history and somehow humans survived, the difference this time around is the population numbers.
I disagree that we are past a tipping out. There is not enough knowledge regarding the global inventory of methane hydrates. Definitely reducing CO2 emissions would be a positive step.
There are 3 types of deniers, all of which I believe are motivated by fear of having to change their lives somewhat.
1) It's not happening.
2) It's happening but not our fault.
3) It's happening but we can't do anything about it.
None of these theories is correct.
Change lives "somewhat"?????? Better think that through a bit and what would happen with 7 billion people and growing without cheap portable energy. Just getting food supplies where needed, let alone dealing with the drastic reduction in food production, would change lives a little more than "somewhat".
That's just hilarious.
Whether you believe in climate change or not, there's no dispute that sea level is rising. There's no dispute that sea level will continue to rise in the coming decades. While none of the readers of this article will be around to see it, one day Manhattan will be underwater.
Everything is impermanent. The Jersey Shore will rebuild and will be swept away again in the future. We will continue to burn fossil fuels until there's no more left, regardless of the impacts to the environment. The best thing to do is not to fret and to try to enjoy the times of chaos and catastrophe. More mistakes will be made, but human consciousness continues to evolve. Maybe with continued evolution of the mind and the spirit, humans will be experiencing less suffering when our sun goes supernova.
Never waste a good crisis to push an agenda. No matter what you do, the climate is going to change and you're going to have to deal with it no matter what. I've been doing climate research since college and these patterns come and go. If one looks at the data you'll see this was happening long before we were here and it will happen long after we're gone. Be as green as you want, but if you can't stop continental drift, precession, magnetic shifts, solar cycles and so on, this is going to happen period. But hey, like terrorism and the repubs, the Democrats need their fear card.
Hey, when has a Democrat ever passed up an opportunity for another tax to waste? Heck it was always a joke that at some point the Party would find a way to tax air.
" this was happening long before we were here and it will happen long after we're gone"
Everybody knows that, but it is not relevant to the current discussion.
Nobody is suggesting we can or should stop natural climate change. Nobody. We are talking about the part we contribute to, and therefore have the choice to change.
Gotta love all the know-it-all, elitist, deniers are dumba$$es, robots who've got it all figgered owt. The biggest joke of all is that we caused climate change and we can fix it. Go back to your lattes and smartphones and quit screaming that the sky is falling.
Yea ROMPPY and his SCIENTIFIC GURUS 101 are the PAYOFF SCIENTISTS of the BACKWARDS ROMPPY ENERGY POLICY. DRILL, TEAR-UP, FRAKK, DIG DEEPER COAL MINES, ALL his BULL he is saying in the ARTICLE ABOVE.
This is a RUSE, TWIST, LIE, that has nothing to do with SOUND ENERGY POLICIES it is BACK TO SMOKESTACK ERA with the OIL MAFIA and GOP.. ROMPPY and ALL his LY'IN GOP BUDDIES are PAID OFF BY THE SYNDICATE called GOP/OIL MAFIA!!!!
Lets get real FOLKS.
Not much for thinking a problem out I would guess. Great parrot work though.
Ok put yourself in the position of a politician. It is pretty much an accepted fact that the climate is in change, there is even a strong argument that the massive use of fossil fuels is contributing to that change. There has been warmer periods in recorded history followed by much colder periods. In the 1960s the big fear was a coming ice-age. Now what is to be done? This civilization and the unsustainable level of over-population is only possible because of cheap portable energy, fossil fuels. There are NO viable replacement available at this point. Fossil fuels and byproducts are the ONLY thing permitting the population level of 7 billion plus. Solar is not viable on the scale needed, wind power is not viable, plant fuels require a choice between food or fuel and is inefficient, battery power storage is great for toys not so much for transportation of supply stream, hydrogen is only feasible using fossil fuel root stock ... nothing has been found to replace fossil fuel power source. Going back to 18th and 19th century technology is insane without a drastic population decrease. Now as a politician what are your options? The real answer is not the fossil fuel elimination, that is not possible nor the real problem. Nor is importing 3rd world excess populations any kind of answer to any problem. The only real solution is reduce the population levels that are using fossil fuels .... try getting votes on that platform. Either humanity sets a course of methodical, humane world population reduction through birth control and less than replacement birth rate world wide or nature will reduce that population in drastic and horrific sudden ways. A world population of 1 billion would be a paradise with every single problem of today solving itself, a world population of 7 billion is a cesspool with starvation, destruction and brutal civilization collapse and rule of the sword that makes the dark ages look like a golden age as an inevitable outcome. How do you get that message across to developed country citizens let alone to ignorant 3rd world populations that think 12 kids is a good thing? Europe and N.America started reducing its birth rates from the 60s on so their children could have a better future ....... all that resulted was influx of 3rd world excess populations and a worse situation than before. Doing nothing is not viable, but doing something that is not constructive to the problem just to say you are doing something is worse.