I agree with the premise of this article, which I take as the statement that, "BY CIRCULATING commentary that suggests hurricane Sandy was exacerbated by human-caused global warming, the Climate Commission is wilfully misleading the public."

But I would also call attention to one of the closing statement, which I equally agree with, that being, "The wilful misuse of science by lobby groups to support their agendas has now become an epidemic."

Global warming has now become a political and ideological issue, when it should be a purely scientific one. I can't see how anyone could possibly claim that Sandy has anything to do with global warming, but then I'm not a scientist so what do I know? No more than any other idiot with a blog.

Here is another excerpt that caught my attention, "In a broader context, the lack of recent global warming is also an impediment to those who argue that Sandy was influenced by industrial carbon dioxide."

I haven't been following the trends in global temperatures, but I do remember one global warming skeptic pointing out that the rise in sea level on low lying Pacific islands was due not so much to sea level rise, but rather to the islands' overuse of groundwater resulting in lowering of land level. That can certainly be argued in the case of SW Taiwan with its fish ponds, which all use ground water.

I've read many 'scientific' reports documenting how, as we do reduce carbon emissions, we will actually increase global warming. Pollution (i.e., human, smoke-stack, exhaust) blocks the sun; it doesn't "block it in". It blocks it out. Remember those theories we were all taught about how the dinosaurs disappeared? I believe it went something like this: There were multiple volcanoes releasing large amounts of ash (later to become an asteroid doing essentially the same), blocking out the sun, lowering temperatures, and killing everything. And then there's the concept of a nuclear winter (lowering world temperatures after a nuclear war.) I've never heard of a nuclear summer.

As this alternative theory goes, as carbon decreases, heat will increase. Perhaps the sun is just heating up? Don't stars do that until they explode? Or perhaps the sun is just in a really happy phase that will last, oh, a few million years.

Ultimately, as crude as this sounds, I don't give a shit about global warming regardless of its cause. For us to think that we can actually control nature. or that we are the caretakers of the earth, is ridiculous. We came out of the earth. I think we should be more focused on how to treat each other in humane ways. In the process of doing that, I think we will act in ways that benefit our environment. Our problem is not that we treat our environment badly, it's that we treat each other badly. After all, each an every one of us are the environment.

But, the problem at hand is that this issue of global warming has been hijacked by anyone who wants to pull an ear to their cause. It's ridiculous. For example, here is an excerpt from the first comment to the article you cited:

Mark, there are literally thousands of scientists working worldwide who are more relevantly qualified who have consistently produced research which points to the likelihood of anthropogenic global warming.

That's not good logic. It's based on the fallacy of an appeal to authority. I know nothing of the science, but thousands of scientists say it's so, so it must be. It's bad logic. Doctors say it is healthy, so it is healthy. The Government says it is legal, so it is legal. The Health Department says the vegetables are pesticide free, and so they are.

Where would such thinking have gotten us 800 years ago?