Never mind the logic that if any ionization occurred due to Fukushima, we should have seen a peak & drop. Why a super-hurricane this year instead of the immediate hurricane season after Fukushima Recombination would eliminate most ionization fairly shortly unless you have a steady re-ionization source such as cosmic ray background. These type of science conspiracies don't require detailed technical analysis to refute, usually a basic intelligent application of Occam's razor will suffice.
It's great to see commentary by names I remember from so long ago, but sad to see it wasted on this issue. So I'll change the subject
Climate change was barely mentioned this election cycle. We all know how much technological change will be required to transition to a carbon neutral, non-toxic industrial base that by any measure provides anything resembling current living standards for existing western populations, let alone the rest of the world. Yet even more completely off the table is the military budget.
I have been out of academia for nearly 35 years, but from following professional societies, etc. the dominance of military spending in Federal R&D is also completely off the table in the technical community as far as I can see.
If we take the 120-140 Billion$/year federal R&D budget and subtract biomedical spending in NIH budget, then DOD, Homeland Security &DOE nuclear are at least 70-80% of the remaining funding. So NASA, NIST, NSF, non-military national labs, etc are competing for the remaining 20-30% let alone energy storage, alternative energy production, and so on.
We can have all the climate scientist & academics in the world feeling superior to the GOP climate deniers, but as long as the US academic community remains silent about this the chances of developing the technological resources to do anything serious about climate change remain nil, regardless of changes in opinion or political will. As can be seen in all the recent "fiscal cliff" demagogy. reductions in military funding are completely off the table. How do we mobilize the scientific community to address their own issues regarding the immense re-orientation of priorities required if we are to have the capability of addressing climate change and a sustainable industrial society, should we ever actually desire to do so? (When I get into my own, slightly depressed conspiratorial mode, I wonder if all the goal of climate denial is just a strategy to delay the inevitable until Lovelock is proven right, and a massive nuclear expansion is the only option left on the table).