Frankenstorm Sandy and Tobacco

By Stephan Lewandowsky
Professor, School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol
Posted on 31 October 2012

What does "frankenstorm" Sandy have to do with smoking? Well, quite a bit actually, in an indirect way. I talk about the underlying cognition of tobacco and climate change here, for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Bookmark and Share

8 Comments


Comments 1 to 8:

  1. On what basis did "Climate Change" impact this storm, in fact since temperatures have been easing over 16 year and considering cause and effect, it would only be reasonable to state that Sandy was influenced by climate "Staying the same" - not a good headline

    I think you need to question your belief in this mantra


    For example, by extension in your belief that the Doomsayers must be correct you therefore agree that if we were to replace our Oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere with CO2 the temperature would be 95 degrees C hotter than it is today instead of the 5.2 degrees resulting from projecting energy saturation of CO2, and there would be no liquid water on earth.

    Clearly since the sun was hotter in the past, and earth did have near 100% CO2 and liquid water at the same time the earth could not have been more than 95 degrees hotter, it's verging on the absurd.

    (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: Unsupported assertions not already dealt with by mk below snipped.
  2. (-snip-)
    Moderator Response:

    The term denier is used for those in denial of the the science of climate change; specifically, for those who gainsay the science without offering up any supportive links (to the primary literature) of their own assertions.

    Tone-trolling snipped.

  3. in fact since temperatures have been easing over 16 year


    The rate of increase of surface temperatures has been small, but that means that most of the increase in energy has gone into the oceans. That there is a steady increase in the energy of the Earth's system due to the slowing of energy escape by greenhouse gases is basic physics.

    I think you need to question your belief in this mantra


    Oh the irony. Your beliefs fly in the face of well established science ... the science accepted by those trained and with great experience in the field. You have far too much faith in your own ability to know what it true.

    Your article uses the insult "Denier" - not very objective


    And what of your "DoomSayers"? That's the beam in your eye, that puts you squarely within the realm of Dr. Lewandowsky's work on irrational ideation. The risks and threats of global warming are real and we are witnessing some of them. Whether that spells doom is up to us, but mocking those who point out the threat points us in the wrong direction.
  4. Clearly since the sun was hotter in the past, and earth did have near 100% CO2 and liquid water at the same time the earth could not have been more than 95 degrees hotter, it's verging on the absurd


    This is like arguing that money doesn't make people wealthy by pointing out that it's verging on the absurd to think that I was ever the richest man on Earth ... back when I had a trillion dollars.

    Had the Earth ever had an atmosphere composed of nearly 100% CO2, it would indeed have been more than 95 degrees hotter. You can't disprove physics by ridiculing an inference from a condition that you have invented. And if you haven't invented it, please provide some substantiation of the claim ... together with a calculation of the Earth's temperature of the time, which is essential to your argument.

    While you're at it, you might want to provide your reasons for thinking that you know better than all of the world's climate scientists, including those in the "skeptical" camp such as Lindzen and Spencer ... who most certainly do not believe the things you believe.
  5. On what basis did "Climate Change" impact this storm, in fact since temperatures have been easing over 16 year and considering cause and effect, it would only be reasonable to state that Sandy was influenced by climate - not a good headline


    It would be interesting to know what you mean by "easing" here. In normal parlance that would mean that the temperature has been going down -- which is quite false. That you said "Staying the same" rather than "getting colder" suggests that you are aware that the natural meaning of your language is false -- that you are aware that it is only the rate of increase that has "eased". But since the rate of increase isn't zero, "Staying the same" is a falsehood. Why are you knowingly giving false impressions and writing falsehoods?

    Here is what is true: the last 16 years were hotter than any other 16 years on record. Most of those 16 years were individually hotter than any previous year on record. What sort of headline does that make for?
  6. Here's a good article on the false and fallacious notions about the last 16 years that have been promulgated by the activist AGW-denial community: http://www.skepticalscience.com/rose-curry-double-down-denial.html
  7. in fact since temperatures have been easing over 16 year
    What "easing" looks like: Annual HadCRUT4 global mean since 1850 with linear trend since 1997 @ WoodForTrees

    Clearly since the sun was hotter in the past
    Star evolution does not work that way. The output of the sun 4 billion years ago is estimated at about 70% of todays levels. For starters: Faint young Sun paradox @ wikipedia.
  8. testing
Comments Policy

Post a Comment

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or register a new account.