When storms like Hurricane Sandy and Patricia occurred, a lot of reporters and politicians considered climate change as a significant factor in the intensity of the storms. Notably, then-mayor Bloomberg used Sandy to promote a climate change mitigation and adaptation agenda (CBS). While the degree to which climate change currently contributes to extreme weather events is disputed among individual scientists, organizations like NOAA say it’s still too early to detect these effects (NOAA). I guess the problem/question I have with using events like hurricanes and the “hottest year on record” to further climate change awareness and action, at least among the public and politicians, is: what happens when we have a smaller-than average storm, or string of them, or if next year is actually relatively colder than the previous few years? These events force us (mitigation and adaptation proponents) to step back and say to opponents: “changes in climate occur over the course of years and decades. It’s the overall pattern we’re concerned about.” Opponents then get to throw in our face: “But you said Sandy was caused by climate change. So if…” (I realize “cause” is very different than “contribute”, but this distinction may be lost on many)

I understand that public and political opinion is largely formed through what the media, our friends, and public figures tell us, and that garnering public and political support for climate change measures hinges on influencing how these groups interpret something like Sandy, but there are potential downsides to this strategy.

CBS – http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bloomberg-post-sandy-nyc-will-lead-climate-change-battle/
NOAA- http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes