Poll: Was Hurricane Sandy Caused by Global Warming?

US News and World Report is running a poll on whether or not Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming.  Here is the poll results currently:

Since it is open to everyone, no matter what side of this opinion you come down on, see their web site to add your vote if you wish.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/10/30/was-hurricane-sandy-caused-by-global-warming

UPDATE: From reader input it seems this poll is apparently of even poorer quality than one would expect,  and allows multiple voting. NO to vote stuffing. Be honest, 1 vote per person please…though, they may allow you to think it was counted. Sigh, what a poor design for a national magazine. In any event none of that vote stuffing please. OTOH this lack of basic input control negates any value the poll may have. – Anthony

About these ads
This entry was posted in hurricanes, Opinion, Weather and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

186 Responses to Poll: Was Hurricane Sandy Caused by Global Warming?

  1. Gene Selkov says:

    Where is the “don’t know” case?

  2. HenryP says:

    Caused by natural global cooling (there is no more global warming)

  3. Donny says:

    what happened to weather isn’t climate?

  4. Gene, gone with wind.

  5. son of mulder says:
  6. L C Burgundy says:

    So global warming causes phasing of the polar jet and a deep trough with tropical systems now? Wow, that almost makes sense.

  7. Monty says:

    Henry P. The world is still warming. I shouldn’t believe everything you read in the British Daily Mail!

    Donny: don’t you understand attribution?

  8. jeremyp99 says:

    Swinging rapidly towards the sceptical view…

  9. Dr T G Watkins says:

    Result narrowing rapidly as your regulars check in.

  10. polkyb says:

    Out of interest, when was the last time something like this hit so far north?

  11. Doug Huffman says:

    Does not return an error on a second ‘vote’.

    REPLY: NO to vote stuffing. Be honest, 1 vote per person please…they may allow you to think it was counted. Sigh whata poor design for a national magazine. In any event none of that stuff please – Anthony

  12. Bill Marsh says:

    So that’s how we do it now? We vote? Well, certainly saves a lot of money for research.

  13. Vincent says:

    ‘No’ is up to 41% now (2000 UTC). Cool heads will prevail,eventually

  14. Urederra says:

    It is just a way of getting internet traffic and increasing Alexa and google rankings,

  15. Third and fourth responses seem to be accepted, too! And the %age rates change!

  16. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    HenryP says:

    October 30, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Caused by natural global cooling (there is no more global warming)

    And the warm Atlantic which hasn’t cooled yet!

  17. Andrew30 says:

    Hurricane Hazel was larger, stronger, longer lasting, more destructive, killed more people, followed more or less the same path (to this point in time), happed at the same time of year, also confronted a large cold front near the Canada US border and happened in 1954.

    It was almost 60 years ago that the same thing happened.

    Almost exactly the same storm pattern, 60 years ago.
    So, no Sandy was not caused by ‘Global Warming’

  18. G P Hanner says:

    It looks like “Sandy” is behaving like a cut-off low. Is that correct?

  19. I apologise for the vote stuffing, but I could not resist the temptation.
    I shall serve my penitence.

  20. RHS says:

    The No vote is now up to 47%…

  21. ConTrari says:

    @ Gene Selkov:
    “Where is the “don’t know” case?”

    Tsk, tsk, no such thing allowed in climate issues…

  22. Goode 'nuff says:

    http://i3.tinypic.com/25s0jds.jpg

    No, it was Dick Cheney’s October surprise…
    Smoke turned us onto that…

  23. ConTrari says:

    @ Bill Marsh:
    “So that’s how we do it now? We vote? Well, certainly saves a lot of money for research.”

    Not really, it saves work for the scientists, the money flows in anyway.

  24. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Monty says:

    October 30, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Henry P. The world is still warming. I shouldn’t believe everything you read in the British Daily Mail!

    You have read Henrys theories yet have you?

  25. Ilma630 says:

    Since when has the climate, or even the weather seen a survey and thought “yes, I must obey”?

    This is one of the stupidest surveys you could possibly have.

  26. Brandan says:

    Global warming caused this hurricane just as much as global warming causes volcanoes and earthquakes and tsunamis.

  27. pat says:

    “TO flock” not “flock” – see the empty beds!
    “the county served about 96 residents – including 20 pets”!

    Evacuees from Atlantic, Ocean counties to flock to Burlco shelter
    http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20121030/NEWS01/121030015/Evacuees-from-Atlantic-Ocean-counties-flock-Burlco-shelter?odyssey=mod|breaking|img|FRONTPAGE

  28. Was the Great Northsea flood of 1953 caused by Global Warming too, I wonder?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953

  29. siliggy says:

    Were the events of 1869,1883,1888,1901,1914,1927 and 1953 also caused by natural warming and cooling?
    Do we need more atmospheric CO2 to radiatively bypass and thus weaken convection to reduce these NATURAL disasters?
    Examples.
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/57338266?zoomLevel=3
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/18742604?zoomLevel=5
    Begin reading at “Just recently”.
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/46867480/4048158

  30. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Gene Selkov says:

    October 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Where is the “don’t know” case?

    Don’t know!

  31. HenryP says:

    It seems the poll results changed after reporting on it here. Obviously it is a crazy choice as if science is influenced by opinion.

  32. A lot of the comments below the US News and World Report article are both puerile and telling in their content.

  33. The comments section for the USNews article is a pretty dismal array of conjecture and talking points posing as facts. The world hasn’t warmed in 15 years and global hurricane energy is not increasing according to easily obtained original source data.

    A woefull condemnation of the education system.

  34. Goode 'nuff says:

    http://presscore.ca/2011/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SBX-Steering-Hurricane-Sandy.jpg

    He’s getting good with that thing. They call him pilot whale or big whale or something like that.

  35. Frank K. says:

    jeremyp99 says:
    October 30, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Swinging rapidly towards the sceptical view…

    Yes! I added my voice. Don’t you love these internet polls?? :)

  36. Martin C says:

    51.46 ‘Yes’ , 48.54 ‘NO’ at 1:37 pm Arizona time, which since we aren’t on daylight savings time, equates to PDT.

    . .oh, and I thought the name of that rag . .er . .I mean ‘magazine was ” US BLUES and World DISTORT . . .. that sure fits better . . .

  37. Malcolm Miller says:

    Scientific decisions made by taking a vote are clearly democratic, and therfeore correct.

  38. Justthinkin says:

    Well,there go our intellectual betters confusing weather with climate again.It would be laughable if it wasn’t costing us taxpayers so much. What maroons.

  39. Donny says:

    actually, ya , I do understand it Monty, and if thats the way that it’s going to be then I can just easy argue the blizzard in Oklahoma in 2011 was a direct result of Global Cooling

  40. Jack Foster says:

    NO . . . has just taken the lead!

  41. Physics Major says:

    It’s about 51 to 49 now. Looks like a presidential poll.

  42. HenryP says:

    We are winning now. On the poll that is. Not on the science. But then again….the poll was not very scientific….

  43. george e smith says:

    Ask me in 30 years; then I will know for sure. Right now it is just a freak weather event. I’ve seen Tornadoes; also freak weather events.

  44. Rob Potter says:

    The comments are too embarrassing to respond to;

    “The increasing trend in powerful storms”
    “The increasing temperature of the oceans”
    “The rapid warming of the atmosphere”

    I just want to ask these people have they ever looked at the science that they claim to be espousing? They are full of “denier-this” and “denier-that”, but they have not even bothered to find out that their statements about the data are simply wrong! I despair.

  45. kevin king says:

    quite frightening but not surprising that 50% of the population is as dumb as S***.

  46. Merovign says:

    A poll. That’s kind of taking “consensus science” to a ridiculous extreme, isn’t it?

    Online poll suggestion: Do dinosaurs still roam the Earth? Yes / No / Don’t Know

  47. elmer says:

    Now Gore have a reason for living once again.

  48. stephen richards says:

    Kevin K

    That’s the frightening bit of info. 50% of people are fundamentally stupid. Mind you, in the UK I think it’s closer to 97%.

  49. Philip Peake says:

    Merovign: Modified your poll question slightly

    Do dinosaurs still roam the Earth? Yes / No / Don’t Know / Only in the halls of Congress

  50. Al B. Quirky says:

    Nah, it was a butterfly in Brazil flapping its wings.

  51. Jimbo says:

    I thought that we should get less extreme weather from global warming. I mean difference between the poles and the equator and all that. Silly me.

    Now this really is desperate, desperate stuff. Science by consensus, appeals to authority and votes. Whatever next – scientific papers passed by referendum. It’s good to see that that the dreadfully complicated science of climate is finally making headway and is well understood by the general population.

  52. George Kominiak says:

    Hey! I just voted. It’s now 21:04Z. The results have (for the moment) shifed to ~52% against vs. ~47% for!

  53. ntesdorf says:

    The poll is narrowing : -

    Tuesday, October 30, 2012 Subscribe | Contact Us
    Was Hurricane Sandy Caused by Global Warming?
    47.4% Yes
    52.6% No

  54. David O. says:

    Definitely caused by a butterfly in Brazil. Bring back DDT!

  55. John West says:

    Update:
    Was Hurricane Sandy Caused by Global Warming?
    45.89% Yes
    54.11% No

  56. Kasuha says:

    Great example of science by public opinion. Next time they should do a poll about whether we can travel at a speed of light – because we sure can make it happen if we all vote for it…

  57. commieBob says:

    54% for no now.

  58. Sundance says:

    I only voted once but I got a bunch of dead Chicagoans who will be voting for Obama next week to vote on the climate change survey.

  59. Ted says:

    Well, that settles it!. Let’s have polls to decide if people evolved or were created. Let’s have a poll to decide if we can travel faster than the speed of light!

    Think of the money we will save! No more expensive research! We just take a poll!

  60. wayne says:

    “Since it is open to everyone, no matter what side of this opinion you come down on, see their web site to add your vote if you wish.”

    Only if this additional question is asked if answering yes to the question:
    “If you were to realize that storms are actually stronger when it is colder high in the atmosphere than when it is just merely warmer at the very surface would you change your answer to the question above from yes to no?”

    Then I would take the poll. Otherwise it is just more manipulated propaganda seeking a tainted and meaningless ‘consensus’. Same o’ same o’.

  61. doughuffman says:

    On the linked USNews.com page is “Poll: Half of Republicans Believe in Global Warming” suggesting that they consider pubies different than demos, and that they are not both progressive political philosophies.

    See Hillsdale College’s on-line and free Constitution and Western History lecture series. They make clear the anathema to the Founding Fathers’ Constitution and vision that is progressivism.

  62. Bryan A says:

    Now it is 44% yes and 56% No

  63. Auto says:

    Merovign says:

    October 30, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    A poll. That’s kind of taking “consensus science” to a ridiculous extreme, isn’t it?

    Online poll suggestion: Do dinosaurs still roam the Earth? Yes / No / Don’t Know

    Well, dino-birds do – for what that’s worth.
    Not sure about ‘Climate scientists’ – there area number – but not every one quoted in the MSM as a CS is – well – a scientist, I guess.
    And, no – I’m not voting on this ‘poll’.
    The one from Oz was so embarrassing back in April [did we ever hear about that and the Team's 40% to Sanity's 59 +?]
    All Hallow’s Eve tomorrow. Bonfire Night on the 5th, and Remembrance Sunday on 11th.
    Time to remember . . .

  64. Vohaul says:

    The Creed:

    global warming is real at a level of 0.75 +/- 0.2 degrees centigrade
    man made global warming is real (there MUST be a difference between 2.5 billions to 7 billions in between 1960 and 2010)
    carbondioxide is capable of absorbing infrared radiaton
    carbondioxide is capable of releasing infrared radiation
    carbondioxide is essential for life as known on earth
    carbondioxide is not an air pollutant
    man made global warming is not responsible for weather phenomenas – THUS FAR (and most probably not in the near future)
    petroleum is the most valuable commodity to preserve futural sustainable development of mankind – we should be careful wasting it!
    nuclear power plants are unpredictable to handle!and there is no solution to handle nuclear waste in a safe way, thats why it is impossible to predicti future costs.
    “green economy” isn’t devlish, but it is misguided by the Mann’s, Hansen’s, Trenberth’s, Rahmstorf’s and Schellnhubers’s of the entire world.

    I’m with the tough people of New York and all those facing the riscs of of life on earth – a never ending struggle – i suppose!

    Great Blog here

  65. Berényi Péter says:

    43.74% Yes, 56.26% No at the moment

  66. Max Hugoson says:

    I’m telling my Brother. He’s from Chicago…it will by 90% NOT CAUSED by Global Warming by 10PM this evening. (Heh heh heh, he doesn’t even have to be dead to do that!)

  67. Gibby says:

    At almost 55% for No now. Took the time to read some of the comments at the bottom of the page and wow!! is all that I can say.

  68. Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:

    kevin king says:
    October 30, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    quite frightening but not surprising that 50% of the population is as dumb as S***.

    Perfectly understandable since by definition 50% of the population have below average intelligence. Add to that a decade long popular media propaganda blitz and skewed teaching in the schools and I am not surprised. Appalled yes, but not surprised.

    Larry

  69. surely this is worth a government grant to ‘Study”?…… Arghhhh
    http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/for-crying-out-loud/

  70. JIMBO – Now this really is desperate, desperate stuff. Science by consensus,

    Science by concensus is what we already have I believe if we listen to the IPCC and all those other seriosuly deranged goof-balls out there.

  71. atthemurph says:

    This shows why Democracy is a very bad idea and why the people who started the US designed a Republic.

  72. Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research apparently thinks it is “C”: Nobody knows and their lying if they say they do.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/features/2012/hurricane_sandy_and_climate_change/hurricane_sandy_and_climate_change_trenberth_of_ncar_on_dangers_to_coast.html

  73. Jimbo says:

    Results just in
    42.47% Yes
    57.53% No
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/10/30/was-hurricane-sandy-caused-by-global-warming

    Whatever the final result this poll is meaningless as to the cause of the hurricane. Ahhhhhh!

    Let me state some scientific truths:
    Hurricanes this strong have never been recorded in human history.
    Hurricanes are getting more powerful.
    /end SARC

    Sheeesh.

  74. Should, of course, be, “they’re lying”

  75. We are now at

    A 42.47% Yes
    B 57.53% No

    but I wonder if nature is ever going to listen to a poll

  76. astateofdenmark says:

    It definitely lets you vote multiple times. Should just be pulled.

  77. HRB in Edmonton says:

    Now at >59% “No”

  78. kcom says:

    I admit I haven’t been paying much attention to the story. I’m not in the path and other things are going on. But from the little I have seen, it seems the hurricane made landfall with winds in the 90 mph range. Is that true? So, if so, doesn’t that mean the “major” hurricane streak is still alive? That we haven’t had a landfalling Cat 3 storm since 2005? Thanks.

  79. JC says:

    What global warming?

  80. stricq says:

    It’s 60/40 in favor of No at this time.

  81. Aviator says:

    Currently -32C in Eureka – what “Global Warming”?

  82. Robert A. Taylor says:

    A.39.13% Yes
    B.60.87% No

  83. Joezee says:

    update
    yes 39
    no 61
    at 3:07 pm pdt

  84. David Ball says:

    “That’s why we beat them at football nearly half the time”- Shelbyvillian mocking Springfielders.

  85. Jim Clarke says:

    Since there has been no increase in Atlantic hurricane activity in over 100 years, there is no correlation between hurricane activity and any increase in temperature, whether natural or man made. Giants winning the World Series, however…

  86. D.Patterson says:

    Currently:
    A.38.23% Yes
    B.61.77% No

  87. Wanda Light says:

    I don’t think the hurricane was caused by global warming, just the heavy snow. I remember something in the New York Times last year about ‘the warmer it gets the more it snows’. Yeah, that’s it!

  88. eric1skeptic says:

    kcom asked: “But from the little I have seen, it seems the hurricane made landfall with winds in the 90 mph range. Is that true?”

    Less. The NHC said it made landfall with 80 mph winds. They send planes far and wide to search out the strongest sustained winds aloft and then estimate the ocean surface wind speed. The highest sustained ground wind on “land” that I heard about was on the Bay Bridge with 70 mph, not quite hurricane strength.

  89. nigelf says:

    61.77 no, 38.23 yes. I voted no only once.

  90. Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7 says:

    What a dismally awful article! What should be discussed are the vast improvements in storm tracking and prediction and the many lives saved as a result. Compare “Sandy” with the 1900 Galveston hurricane (from Wikipedia):

    The Hurricane of 1900 made landfall on September 8, 1900 in the city of Galveston, Texas, in the United States.[1] It had estimated winds of 145 miles per hour (233 km/h) at landfall, making it a Category 4 storm on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale.[2] It was the deadliest hurricane in US history, and the second costliest hurricane in US history based on the US dollar’s 2005 value (to compare costs with those of Hurricane Katrina and others).

    The hurricane caused great loss of life with the estimated death toll between 6,000 and 12,000 individuals;[3] the number most cited in official reports is 8,000, giving the storm the third-highest number of deaths or injuries of any Atlantic hurricane, after the Great Hurricane of 1780 and 1998′s Hurricane Mitch. The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is the deadliest natural disaster ever to strike the United States. By contrast, the second-deadliest storm to strike the United States, the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, caused more than 2,500 deaths, and the deadliest storm of recent times, Hurricane Katrina, claimed the lives of approximately 1,800 people.

    Nobody had any idea what was coming. Considering how much more densly populated we are now, without modern storm tracking and prediction and the communications network to get the word out, storms like Sandy would be much deadlier. Cleanup will be a bitch, but we won’t have to pave the streets of New York over thousands of unexcavated and uncounted bodies of storm victims as they did in Galveston.

  91. David says:

    No is over 62%

  92. Peter Hannan says:

    At 17.15 Eastern Time I gave my vote, and this result appeared: Yes 37.81%, No 62.19%.

  93. _Jim says:

    36.96% Yes
    63.04% No

  94. Annie says:

    63.04% as No now @ 22:25Z

  95. Patrick (adelaide) says:

    Meaningless but for the propaganda benefit. Although I’m from Oz, I seem to recall the East coast gets hit by these storms every now and again with similar impact. Then someone makes a documentary :)
    36.96% Yes
    63.04% No

  96. Justthinkin says:

    “OTOH this lack of basic input control negates any value the poll may have. ”
    Au contrair,Anthony. This allows the leftard media to “adjust” the YES vote up to around 95% before shutting down this so called poll. Sorta reminds me of a climate model.

  97. Corey S. says:

    63 No – 37 Yes

  98. Annie says:

    I went back to read comments after the poll and there weren’t any. Also, interestingly, I wouldn’t have been able to vote again, not that I would have done so as I believe in fair play and honesty.

  99. Truthseeker says:

    “Yes” is now 36% and “No” is 64%. Seems to me that WUWT has a greater reach than the traditional MSM.

  100. Maxbert says:

    Make that 63% No and 36% Yes, at 3:31 pm Pacific Time.

  101. Toto says:

    NRO has a similar poll
    http://www.nationalreview.com/
    “Is Sandy a product of global warming?”
    currently Yes 4%, No 96%

    WUWT should have it’s own (better) poll. To make it more useful, it should have more questions:
    Is the weather getting worse over the years, in your own experience?
    Is there GW? Is there AGW? Is CO2 the sole cause? Is GW bad? Do you believe in CAGW?
    Do you believe that current social/economic/geopolitical issues or future climate issues are more important to deal with at this time?
    Have climatic scientists changed your respect for science and all scientists for better or worse?
    Where do you get your information about GW?

  102. alan says:

    The design of this poll may be a model for how the November 6 election will be conducted.

  103. R John says:

    If Al Franken can steal an election by “finding” votes, then I am voting five times.

  104. ElmerF says:

    Up to No=64%+
    US News et al is doomed to follow Newsweek into the pits of oblivion soon.

  105. RoHa says:

    That’s science. Now we will have a poll to decide whether the Big Bang theory is correct.

    Forget about emeprical evidence. Just get the votes.

  106. Barbara Skolaut says:

    “this lack of basic input control negates any value the poll may have”

    It didn’t have any value anyway – it’s an internet poll.

  107. Fitzy says:

    Hurricane Sandy is a product of complex Paleo-Socio Feed-backs, Back-Scratch, and Batch-cracked Plot Stacks.
    The evildense is incontra-convertable, also known as a Noriega-Curve or a Castro- 1955-Dodge-Sine.
    Millions of minutes ago, super-dupa large critters called Bombastasaurs roamed the Artic tundra, when it was warm and swampy.
    When they expired, around 10:00am last tuesday (times a zillion years: +/- 5 Tuesdays) they left enormous piles of mouldering carcasses, which eventually became frozen Bombastigas, as the climate got cooler.
    Sometime in 1998, the Bombastigas started to leeched into Meteor-oligarchy departments, who took one whiff and announced the end was clearly nigh. Oopsa- Daisy-like.
    This contributed to the Urban Budget Excess effect, caused by various University Deans and CEO’s of NGO’s rubbing their thighs in rapid expectation of soon acquiring a Goobermint funded brand new Lexus, twenty-something trophy wife and Knob-All peice prize.
    This rapid increase in fermentating Bombastigas grew into sullen clouds of self-righteous dig-in-the-nation, in turn creating huge Udulatus Asperatus, Academia Asperationus, and Methodologus Assasinationus storms.
    These increased in ferocity, frequency, scale and disney-esque Panavision hand tinted true-to-life-colour as the years rolled by.
    Thanks to scientific breakthroughs in Tweeting and retweeting, the Bombastigas was amplified by Man-Made-Right-Click & Like tripple-stars-Double-Plus-happy-Face effects. Leading to runaway Anthropogenic Global Fooling.
    Hurricane Sandy was therefore Man-made, but due to E.U rules, we have to say it was Person-Made.

  108. Jurgen says:

    The coincidence of the landfall and high tide clearly is a result of too much CO2.
    It is a complicated relationship, but I have a model for the calculations. Trust me.

  109. StuartMcL says:

    Keep it up guys, we may be able to reach the mystical “97% of … agree that …” before they shut it down.

  110. vukcevic says:

    I assume it isn’t matter of global warming but how the North Atlantic accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) is dissipated during the hurricane season. Current total ACE number is 121 (just above normal) of which Sandy 12.5 (Nadine =25), from which one could conclude that global warming may not be the main contributing factor.

  111. Cam_S says:

    Was Hurricane Sandy Caused by Global Warming?
    63 % say yes.
    I say global warming is caused by polls.

  112. Was Hurricane Sandy Caused by Global Warming?
    35.35% Yes
    64.65% No

  113. Owen in GA says:

    Annie, I just saw the 44 inane comments at the bottom of the article. All politics and all but a very lonely few highly credulous of the CAGW meme.

    People really need to look at the storms in history. There were some truly awful weather events in the past made more awful by the inability to warn and prepare. Hurricanes, Typhoons and Tropical Cyclones have been devastating large areas for ever. This one is nothing new.

  114. TomT says:

    I’m not voting. Voting can help you decide who should be the President of The United States, but has nothing at all to do with answering scientific questions.

  115. Spector says:

    Just as those believing in global warming are citing this as ‘proof’ of their belief, I am sure there are those on the other side of the world who will cite this random natural disaster as an act of God in punishment for national blasphemy. I believe the evidence shows that this and worse has happened before and will happen again.

  116. Goldie says:

    They were always going to make mileage on this.

  117. Spence_UK says:

    Oh, this is funny. Talking of linking Sandy to AGW, I left a link over at Phil Plait’s bad astronomy pseudoscience article:

    A wind is rising

    Linking to Dr Pielke Jr’s article on embellishment of science, which seemed quite appropriate. Links posted over there usually end up in the moderation queue, so that didn’t surprise me, but they usually go from moderated to visible; mine went from moderated to “gone”. Now it could be a glitch in the blog software; or it could be that he is deleting links to sound science that explain why he is so wrong…

  118. D. Patterson says:

    There is a scientific miracle underway in North Carolina with not near enough publicity in the healthcare community. It was reported that 2,660 voters aged 110 years or more voted in the 2010 election for the Democrat candidates. Another report finds some 583 North Carolina voters 112 years old or oler are registered to vote as Democrats. The world’s oldest living man in Japan is reported to be only 114 years old. Many people are asking what is this Fountain of Youth in North Carolina which selects so many Democrats for such remarkable longevity in their lives?

  119. _Jim says:

    vukcevic says October 30, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    I assume it isn’t matter of global warming but how the North Atlantic accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) is dissipated during the hurricane season. Current total ACE number is 121 (just above normal) of which Sandy 12.5 (Nadine =25), from which one could conclude that global warming may not be the main contributing factor.

    Governor Cuomo (of New York) needs to be made aware of this fact; he made a statement to the effect that these ‘weather events’ are getting “more extreme” .. this was on NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw -er- I mean Brian Williams.

    .

  120. D. Patterson says:

    TomT says:
    October 30, 2012 at 3:52 pm
    I’m not voting. Voting can help you decide who should be the President of The United States, but has nothing at all to do with answering scientific questions.

    On the contrary, voting has everything to do “with answering scientific questions,” because some of the politicians obstruct employment of the scientific method and publication of peer reviewed research papers used to answer those scientific questions.

  121. _Jim says:

    From: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121030/DA284GAG3.html

    - – - – - – - – - – -

    Klaus Jacob, an environmental disaster expert at Columbia University [says:]… “In the tunnels under the East River, all the signal-and-control systems are underwater. And it is salt water,” he said. “It’s not just that it doesn’t work right now. It all has to be cleaned, dried, reassembled and tested. And we are not sure what the long-term corrosion effect might be.”

    At the time of the study, he said, the MTA also had only a fraction of the large pumps it would need to get major floodwaters out of train and vehicle tunnels quickly.

    The study looked at the kind of flood that the Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates would only strike the city every 100 years.

    This week’s storm, he said, illustrates the pressing need for better defenses against the higher water levels that will come with a warmer planet.

    “I think we have come to the end of studies. What we need now is action,” he said.

    Some authorities [like the quote from Andrew Cuomo below indicates] were contemplating the same ideas.

    “We have to start thinking about how we redesign the system so this doesn’t happen again,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo said. “I don’t think anyone can sit back anymore and say, ‘I’m shocked at this weather pattern.’ There is no weather pattern that can shock me anymore.

    - – - – - – - – - –

    The CAGW meme causing extreme weather events like Sandy is well-sown into the mind of New York State Governor Cuomo ..

    .

  122. Tad says:

    This is just stupid. What does “caused” mean? US News & World Report is obviously a rag.

  123. Annie says:

    Owen in GA @ 3:48 pm:

    Just tried again; no comments, no poll!

  124. Martin Clark says:

    58% No – 42% Yes.
    Suggests the WUWT post has had an effect, but there has been a reaction.
    Obviously the poll is rubbish, but it would be interesting to see mapping of responses by IP address and time-zone. Not that anything like that can be expected.

  125. Dragon's Human says:

    Don’t know if anyone’s still reading comments since this thread is so long. I’ll throw in my 2 cents worth anyway. I am a Florida native. I’ve been through decades of hurricanes. The worst season for me was 2004. We had four Category 4 storms hit in one season. Luckily they dissipated relatively quickly. The worst I’ve seen was Andrew in ’92. It was smallish but it tore Miami a new one. The worst (according to historians) was on Labor Day in 1935. The storm surge was supposedly 20 ft. and it killed hundreds especially in the Keys. My question: If climate change creates hurricanes shouldn’t they be getting stronger? I was in Daytona Beach when Sandy was off the coast. For us, it was no big deal. Lots of wind and rain, some minor flooding and power outages. From looking at the news media about Sandy making landfall in NJ/NY I’d have thought they would have wiped every building off the map and laid waste to the land. God bless the people who lost their lives or their possessions but believe me when I say the storm was not as bad as the others I have mentioned.

  126. Richard Patton says:

    Currently (23:38 UTC) it’s 58-42 in favor of the No’s

  127. Richard T. Fowler says:

    I voted “no” at 4:32 PDT. At this time, the results were:

    NO: 58.54%
    YES: 41.46%

    RTF

  128. Skeptik says:

    Can we have a poll on whether or not 63% of people who participate in US News and World Report polls are morons?

  129. Frank Kotler says:

    Yes. If the continent were still half-covered with ice, we would probably be seeing different weather. Oh, you mean recent warming? No evidence of it…

  130. Truthseeker says:

    Yes 39.39% and No 60.61%. The alarmist trolls have been unsuccessful in trying to alter the result.

  131. D. Patterson says:

    Skeptik says:
    October 30, 2012 at 4:52 pm
    Can we have a poll on whether or not 63% of people who participate in US News and World Report polls are morons?

    How are you going to certify the voter as being at least 112 years of age before allowing their vote?

  132. RoyFOMR says:

    Just voted for the first and last time.
    A.38.9% Yes
    B.61.1% No
    I pray that 97% of the 38.9% don’t get RSI (Repetitive Strain Injury)

  133. eqibno says:

    There was no choice for “Butterfly wing flap” so I voted AGAINST climate change because this has been happening since records were kept, so they should have had a “climate same” category…

  134. Eric Booth says:

    10:05 PM EDT – 62.17 No, 37.83% Yes

  135. ferd berple says:

    A.37,8% Yes
    B.62.2% No

    Obviously the solution is to get rid of humans, and then there will be no more storms. It will be sunny with warm, with butterflies everywhere.

  136. John F. Hultquist says:

    polkyb says:
    October 30, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    “Out of interest, when was the last time something like this hit so far north?

    Information such as you ask about is easily found:
    As to the last time, I think that would be H. Irene – last year.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Irene_(2011)

    Compare H. Irene and H. Sandy via GIF:
    http://coedmagazine.com/2012/10/29/hurricane-sandy-vs-hurricane-irene-a-gif-comparison/

    As this thread is about a poll related to “global warming” it is of interest to delve a bit more into the subject.
    The Worst Massachusetts Hurricanes of the 20th Century
    http://www.mass.gov/czm/worst_hurricanes.htm

    Middle Atlantic States in General
    http://www.midatlantichurricanes.com/BookOverview.html

    . . . for Pennsylvania (link in above site)
    http://www.midatlantichurricanes.com/Pennsylvania.html

    Then pick a date as to when “global warming” kicked in and then note how many serious blows occurred before your chosen date.

    Historical tracks are here – it’s a bit of a bother:
    http://www.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/#

  137. David Cooke says:

    Now the results are:
    37.46% Yes
    62.54% No

    A steady trend to the No side.

  138. Was Sandy the result of Global Warming? Will coming years get even worse? Let’s see some excerpts from the Internet and sources like the Boston Globe:

    ONE: “climatologists say we can expect more hurricanes like this. … Hurricanes will become much more common in the coming century. So no, the city shouldn’t be rebuilt.” (1)

    TWO: “Bobby Kennedy … was saying that we’re going to see many more hurricanes like this one, and those future hurricanes will be caused by global warming. [In] RFK, Jr’s own words: ‘Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence … [This hurricane] is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.’ ” (2)

    THREE: “[shortly after the hurricane] Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” (3)

    FOUR: “The hurricane['s]… real name is global warming. … Although [it] began as a relatively small hurricane … it was supercharged with extraordinary intensity by the relatively blistering sea surface temperatures. …
    The consequences are as heartbreaking as they are terrifying. … Unfortunately, very few people in America know the real name of [the hurricane] because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue. (4)

    FIVE: “Global warming and hurricanes? The local news networks were all predicting one of the worst hurricanes seasons in many years. Upward 15 to 20 major events. Naturally, like everything else that goes wrong they indicated the reason being global warming. (5)

    ===

    So what does WUWT have to say that can possibly counter all this?

    A suggestion: point out that the first four items are all from about eight years ago and refer to Katrina, and the last item was from 2007, which I believe (? not checked: guessing from context) was a relatively quiet year for hurricanes.

    - MJM

    References:

    (1)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×4522604

    (2) http://www.wholereason.com/2005/09/how-much-of-the-katrina-destruction-is-bushs-fault.html

    (3) http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

    (4) http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5444&method=full (Katrina’s Real Name
    Boston Globe Op-Ed By Ross Gelbspan, August 30, 2005)

    (5) http://www.focaladvice.com/question/20071116044639AAAFbIn

  139. Fouse says:

    Willis Eschenbach said, that it was tropical storm. What will the category 4 hurricane do to New York.

  140. nobody says:

    The results have changed drastically.

    9:03pm PT
    A. 36.45% Yes
    B. 63.55% No

  141. wayne says:

    @ MJM:

    From:
    23–331PS
    2006 – NOAA HURRICANE FORECASTING

    HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS – FIRST SESSION
    OCTOBER 7, 2005

    Witnesses:
    Brigadier General David L. Johnson (ret.), Director of NOAA’s National Weather Service.
    Mr. Max Mayfield, Director of the National Weather Service’s National Hurricane Center.

    Page 32…

    Most scientists agree that the Atlantic Ocean is currently in a period of increased hurricane activity, which is part of a natural 25- to 40-year cycle known as the ”Atlantic multi-decadal signal,” a shift in the sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic. Warmer sea surface temperatures combined with optimal wind conditions cause more tropical depressions to develop into hurricanes. Scientists are unsure of the cause of the natural temperature and wind shifts in the Atlantic. The last period of high tropical Atlantic activity was 1920–1966. The average number of hurricanes in a warm period is 10 per year, while the average number of hurricanes in a cold period is six storms per year. Today, many more people live in hurricane prone areas than during the last period of high tropical activity, meaning that today’s storms will affect more people and cause more damage than historical storms. Appendix D contains more detail on the Atlantic multi-decadal signal and hurricane frequency.

    There’s much more but you won’t like it, counters every one of your erroneous points and assumptions. I’ll stick with the science.

    This also means if you are anticipating an increase that is right in line with a 1920–1966 (increasing). 1967-2013 (decreasing, note: not 2004 as in the text) and an assumed future 2013-2059 (increase) all attributable to the AMO (Atlantic multi-decadal signal), it is also in the text, no co2, no warming when ever it might repeat again (40-60 year period).

  142. tgmccoy says:

    Cris “Tingles” Matthews has called unbelievers “Pigs” mighty bold words from
    pink skinned liberal…

  143. Theo Goodwin says:

    At NationalReview.com, an honest survey of their readers has 8,070 votes and 95% have voted no to global warming as the cause of The SuperStorm.

  144. Wayne, you misunderstood my posting. The “erroneous points and assumptions,” which sound like they were made just yesterday, were not. The point I was making was that IF you believed the hype being spouted EIGHT YEARS AGO we should have seen a DOZEN Katrina/Sandy Hurricane events by this point.

    We haven’t.

    - MJM

  145. wayne says:

    michaeljmcfadden, apologies. It took a second reading to detect that you weren’t really pushing all of these five points, actually contraire. Suggestion, don’t advertising like that for the warmists, enough floating around. ☺ Well, just add my response to your list of ways to disassemble such nonsense.

  146. Dave Grogan says:

    I read 64.84% say “No”. Am I looking at the wrong graph?

    Puzzled

  147. Dr Burns says:

    65.27% No

  148. EternalOptimist says:

    and the noes have it

    best wishes from the UK to all those affected.

  149. Sleepalot says:

    Istm it’s a valid poll, but it’s not measuring anything about hurricanes: it’s measuring the level to which the propaganda is being accepted, and it’s measring the “activism” level ofalarmists and skeptics. So, vote often if you want USNews to spout less cr*p and more sense!

  150. Wayne, I’ve run into that problem in the past in many postings elsewhere regarding secondhand smoke. When things get so far out of hand in terms of general real beliefs it’s hard to produce any sort of satire without a portion of the population believing it’s a real statement. The problems with AGW or Antismoking propaganda are that

    (1) Most of it contains “germs of truth” — sometimes more and sometimes less. If the “sources” or “authorities” giving the statement are prominent and respected people are less likely to probe into the statements and realize that “Yes, this one little part in these certain conditions COULD possibly be true, but 98% of it is bovine excrement.”

    (2) The “authorities” spouting it are lopsided due to funding organizations and (following due to grants) universities generally supporting the politically correct view through their research design and orientation, with grant proposals “promising” the right sort of results even before the studies are done (e.g. see my comments below Jacob Grier’s article at: http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html )

    (3) Even if the research, despite researchers’ best efforts, ends up giving the “wrong” answers, the researchers can “spin” the results in the words they choose in describing them in their abstract: e.g. emphasizing the non-significant “good” results while characterizing the one actually significant result (which did not support the study’s “purpose”) as showing “no association.: (Note the WHO study’s abstract and my note on it at the bottom of http://www.nycclash.com/Philly.html#ETSTable )

    When fighting in areas where the generally accepted “World View” among both the general population and “The Authorities” is so lopsided, one *does* have to be extra-careful in their attempts at irony or satire … so your criticism is well-taken. If I (or anyone else here who want to) use that Katrina argument again elsewhere we should probably emphasize the nature of our point a bit more strongly at the end.

    - MJM

  151. Ryan says:

    Apparently there will be a new poll:

    “Does global warming cause full moons?”

    aroooooooooooooooo!

  152. MikeTheDenier says:

    Was Hurricane Sandy Caused by Global Warming?

    A.34.31% Yes
    B.65.69% No

    as of 6:29 am EDT 10/31/2012

  153. Wayne, as noted, your criticism is well-taken, but I realize now why I was a bit surprised by it! I meant the comment as a followup to the below earlier in this thread but it was actually made way back in the TwitterTitter thread. WUWT just moves too fast to keep up with!! LOL!
    =====
    “Am I mistaken in my memories (I don’t think I am) or didn’t they say the same sort of stuff after Katrina? I seem to remember some graph trying to argue that every year after Katrina was steadily going to get worse and worse and that by the time we hit 2014ish Florida, Louisiana, et al were going to be little more than distant memories.”

    - MJM

  154. Steve says:

    Consider what would have happened if the north east was heavily dependent on wind or solar as the lefties want. Every windmill would shutdown to protect itself. Solar doesn’t work well in the rain. Blackouts every where.

  155. Jimbo says:

    It’s now worse than we thought, head for the hills.

    The poll now reads:
    33.91% Yes
    66.09% No

    When the poll is over what exactly does it all mean???? Should they have had a poll in 1780 asking whether the global cooling of the Little Ice Ages cased the following???

    The Great Hurricane of 1780 is considered the deadliest Atlantic tropical cyclone of all time.

    About 22,000 people died when the storm pounded Barbados, Martinique, and Sint Eustatius in the Lesser Antilles between October 10 and October 16……..”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/g/great_hurricane_of_1780.htm

    I rest my case.

  156. Bruce Cobb says:

    So, approximately 1/3 of this particular poll’s respondents are hopelessly mired in a quasi-religious Belief system, based on fear and ignorance. Good to know.

  157. Ken Tillotson says:

    It’s the sun stupid !

  158. Todd says:

    So one question would be, Did we (the skeptics at WUWT) turn the pole around, or did the other readers of US News and World Report turn it around?

    if the skeptics at WUWT turned it around, how many people voted overall? It couldn’t have been a statistically significant number.

    If the other readers turned it around, how did it get so far in the “Yes” direction before it turned around? Early vote stuffing by activists?

  159. Hockeystickler says:

    NO – 66.47%, yes – 33.53% – the power of the WUWT community!

  160. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Anthony, we had some awesome waves in Lake Michigan from Hurricane Sandy:

    THE 12 PM OCTOBER 30TH OBSERVATION FOR THE SOUTH MID-LAKE
    BUOY…WHICH IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 43 MILES EAST SOUTHEAST OF
    MILWAUKEE…RECORDED WAVES OF 21.7 FT. THIS STORM RANKS AS SECOND
    HIGHEST WITH RESPECT TO WAVES EVER RECORDED AT THE SOUTH MID-LAKE
    BUOY.

    http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/prodsByState.php?state=IL&prodtype=public

    To your knowledge, did the effects of Sandy reach as far north as Hudson’s Bay or the Arctic Circle? The Arctic sea ice mass was just beginning its re-freeze, and I’m wondering if winds may have disrupted this, leading to more panic/wringing-of-hands amongst many? Best, Charles the DrPH

  161. beng says:

    ****
    D. Patterson says:
    October 30, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    Many people are asking what is this Fountain of Youth in North Carolina which selects so many Democrats for such remarkable longevity in their lives?
    ****

    They have fake birth certificates just like the Zero….

  162. G. Karst says:

    No one hates science based polls more than me. This is one poll, I would like to have seen done properly. Why? Because the question cannot be misconstrued and would have given an indication of the effectiveness of the alarmist campaign. Not the science, but the general public’s perceived understanding of climate vs weather.

    If the public does, in fact, now perceive hurricanes as being caused by AGW, we have lost the political game. Every damaging storm will be perceived as the TEOTWAWKI and there really is nothing that skeptics can effectively do. We cannot “prove” the negative.

    If the public discerns the hype and understands that nothing unusual is happening, then science will prevail. Unfortunately, these results will be meaningless, and we will not obtain a litmus test. GK

  163. more soylent green! says:

    I don’t know if you’re graph updates in realtime or it’s an image from a snapshot, but currently the results at USNews is 32.94% Yes and 67.06% No. Have the results changed that much or are your labels wrong?

  164. Mike H says:

    According to the poll, the No is at 67% and the Yes is at 33%. i.e opposite to what you have up top.
    Cheers

  165. Mike H says:

    Of course, I then thought “I should check and see if this is already mentioned”. Of course, 5 spots up it was. Reading is such a wonderful skill!!
    Cheers

  166. Science decided by an internet poll.

  167. Matt says:

    Vote early. Vote often…

  168. Markj says:

    Donny says:

    what happened to weather isn’t climate?

    Is there an objective definition for either “weather” or “climate”?
    I’ve observed the same when it comes to “local”/”regional” vs “global”. e.g. in the context of warmist denying the MWP.

  169. Markj: Here is NASA’s answer
    http://climate.nasa.gov/news/?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=337
    It seems to be a pretty fluid term, modifies to fit the needs of the speaker.

  170. John in NZ says:

    I voted no 5 times and yes 4 times.

  171. HenryP says:

    Henry@John in NZ.
    You could have saved you some time by just voting once no.
    Henry@all
    Always remember it is the cooling that causes more clouds and more condensation

    I took the results of measurements from 47 weather stations, every day for the past 38 years. In the case of the maximum temps. that was about 650000 results.
    This is my summary of those results.
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    The blue line is the one that is coming down (to the present). I pray to God that I am right with that fit and that we are now nearing the bottom of the curve. If my sine wave is not right, we could be plunging further down, probably towards a much cooler world, like another little ice age.

    So please, do stop worrying about the global warming.. Stop worrying about the carbon. Start worrying about the coming common cold.

  172. Global warming is nothing more than a political tool, used by liberal’s, democrats, socialist, communist and those who wish to be in power. It is a tool of tyranny, so sad that so many individuals have become slaves/drones and willing to give up life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Besides the earth is in a continual state of deterioration since the flood. We as man can do nothing to undo the damage we have already done. Only The SELF EXISTENT ONE, The Creator can reverse the damage to the earth. Freedom is not free. When good men do nothing evil men prevail.

  173. Bruce Cobb says:

    It just keeps getting worse for the Believers.
    It is now:
    31.12% Yes
    68.88% No

    Science and truth trumps the idiotic belief in the magical properties of C02.

  174. Xer says:

    It’s now 70% no vs 30% yes

  175. the1pag says:

    The big problem was caused by global cooling — a blast of cold Canadian air that made the storm turn hard left — like those deadly pronouncements from left-wing warmists — instead of continuing harmlessly on its original course off into the north Atlantic

  176. the1pag says:

    As for my vote, it’s naturally a “NO”.

  177. Power Grab says:

    I just voted. Here are the current stats:

    29.86% Yes
    70.14% No

  178. D K Smith says:

    The global warming zealots theory is destroyed when they say “its the worse hurricane since!”

  179. Pamela Gray says:

    This event, clearly related to natural causes, is part and parcel of natural weather pattern variation cycles. Climate, a stable entity that encompasses the outer boundaries of extremes, includes longer term weather patterns that meanders much like a river bed between the climate boundaries.

  180. Claude Harvey says:

    I never saw a poll result change so fast as when this one came to the attention of skeptical readers. “Power to the Posse”.

  181. HenryP says:

    Good. Twas caused by the global cooling. Keep ur eyes on the T ball.

  182. glen martin says:

    Rapid swing in the poll proves that WUWT has more readers than U.S. News and World Report.

  183. Steve P says:

    Just dropped in to vote no, record current totals:
    Was Hurricane Sandy Caused by Global Warming?

    29.28% Yes
    70.72% No

    It seems to me that a cooling planet would also be a stormier planet, but the big question remains: …compared to what?

Comments are closed.