Reader comments
Global-warming skeptic aims to mislead

Thanks for the letter. It's always great when real scientists speak up, and the fact that the writer is local and a meteorologist is a bonus.

Far more scientists in the field of study remain either skeptical or conclude this is an incredible case of bad politics, than agree with Al Gore. Simple as that.

You have all kinds of petitions, surveys, etc of climatologists and related professionals that state the exact opposite of this letter writer. So to state that the opposite is just more sells pitch of misinformation by the fear mongering crowd.

And of course the fact that Dr Hansen at NASA was caught cooking the books...hmhmm...I mean mistakes were made in data showing that the hotest years did not take place over the past few but in fact back in the first half of the 20th Century. This is the same Dr Hansen who in the early 1970's was promoting the new Ice Age.

And the Governor bought into this.

The Governor can believe what he wants. Where he is getting into trouble is that he is clearly demonstrating his lack of either intelligence or just plain old misrepresentation.

He is Utah's first environmentalist governor. You should have listened to him campaign. Oh the flip and flop this is. The watermelon man. haha

Hoorah for Dr. Davies for taking on the quack monsters!

Things need to change.
But expecting Utahns to admit anything is wrong will never change.

So Scientific conclusions are reached by consensus???

Coal and oil keep you in business if you fly planes. Thing is there is no absolute fact that climate change is happening and we are causing it to cause damage.

People use science to give them empowerment and control lives. warm weather is more pleasent than cold weather anyway and humans have no control over the climate. We didn't create this earth we can't destroy it.

Well, Mr. Davies, as a physicist, educator, and former meteorologist, could you please explain to the readers how it is possible to use computer modeling of chaotic systems as "proof" that man is responsible for global warming? Also include in your response a detailed explanation as to how the scientific method allows for data to be selectively filtered in support of a theory.

Your expertise and insight would be greatly appreciated by those of us who are confused by what we perceive as critical deficiencies in the science of global warming. Thank you.

Thank you Dr. Davies.

Wow, the author really thinks highly of himself. There are thousands of scientists who dispute climate change modeling theories. Just like the hockey stick theory that was proven to be statistically fraudulent, you can't just toss out the stats that don't fit into your predetermined analysis.

Dr. Davies,

You mention "broad scientific consensus" in your opinion. I learned in my 7th grade life science class of the scientific method. And no where in the scientific method is "consensus" mentioned.

There are many scientists who oppose man-made global warming who are ignored my people like you.

Your article is full of the talking points from environmentalists, like those scientists who oppose man-mad global warming are being funded by big oil or big business. I guess those scientists in favor of man-made global warming get there money for research from purely independent organizations like Hollywood?

Last of all, what is your ultimate proposal? Is more government restrictions and taxes the answer to solve the supposed man-made global warming? Do we need to slow down our economy or even regress our economy to save the planet?

Here come the conservative D-news readers to tell you (a person who actually studies climate and understands the difference between climate and weather) how incorrect you are. They know this because republicans told them that global warming is a hoax.

Thank you Dr. Davies. Disputes in science are expected and encouraged, but justification is necessary. It is funny that the people on this forum, with no training, seem to think they are more of an expert than you. Keep speaking up.

RE: anonymous
Climate change has always been happening - where do you think that oil, gas and coal came from? I am glad that you feel more confortable in warm weather; what if that warmer weather reduces snowpack, runoff, reservior levels, food supply? Not so pleasant?
Humans have already affected the climate through the hydrologic cycle (deforestation of rainforests have led to direct increase of deserts in Africa). To ignore or worse, deny, human affect of the earth's climate is arrogant. I will agree with your last statement though - we did not create this earth; but according to most Eastern, Judeo-Christian, and Indigenous native philosophies, we are to be responsible stewards for the next generations. And we might not be able to destroy the planet - we can destroy its' ability to sustain life of all forms.

Since Dr. Davies has confidently forecast that the earth will progressively warmer and anyone who disagrees is an ignorant Philistine, could he please tell me if there will be a good snowpack in January? I'm trying plan my ski vacation.

I am also reminded of how last year was forecast to be one of the worst hurricane seasons on record in the US, mostly because of Global Warming.

I find it ironic that scientists who cannot accurately forecast next month's weather or next year's hurricanes are telling me that I MUST impoverish myself because there will be disastrous global warming in 50 years.

Mr. Davies' op-ed piece contains good reasoning. Perhaps he should apply it to himself. His argument is more than a little hypocritical: he rightly argues that lawyers should not speak authoritatively about climate issues only to go on and speak authoritatively about economic ones.
While he shows that we shouldn't let lawyers fly 747's, he also shows that we shouldn't let physicists make economic decisions.

In a state where thousands of jobs are tied to fossil fuels (coal and gasoline) we should not be fooled by the argument that a shift toward renewable energy will be economically rosy, particularly if that move is affected by government mandate which has shown a tendency for getting it wrong on economic issues.

Mr. Davies' assertion that useful scientific debate only occurs in peer-reviewed literature is grossly incorrect. While that may be the only source the mainstream scientific community believes in, history has proven mainstream science incorrect on several important occasions: the Earth being flat, blacks being a sub-standard race to whites, and global cooling come to mind. We should not arrogantly presume that we are above these imperfections of human reason simply because we are living at a later date than our predecessors.

The folks who believe in global warming would have use use resources wisely and to become better at conserving. This sounds like the advice my old Mormon grandmother gave her grand kids. "Waste not, want not!"

Conservatives want you to abandon logic that is so basic to traditional Americanism?

You are a liberal if you sow a button on a shirt or you insulate your home? These are subversive activities. You must be a leftest radial if you buy at farmers markets, garden and can food.

I put money into my truck to save gas. I must be a leftist.

Its funny seeing Rush get Mormons to attack the same ideas their pioneering ancestors once preached.

There ain't no global warming problem!
There ain't no water problem!
In fact, there ain't no problem whatsoever!
The good lord will take care of everything.
We don't have to do nuthin'!
This is just another liberal commie conspiracy.
Rush told me so.

I love it how some readers blame skepticism of man-made global warming on the Republican party. Whether or not Global Warming is an actual, man-made phenomenon is a very real debate, and I shouldn't have to feel pressure and fear of being labeled as this or that simply because certain scientific views make more sense to me.
Keep the politics out of science and let the facts speak for themselves.

Perhaps Dr. Davies and other "experts" can explain why they were silent on the many inaccuracies in Al Gore's movie when it came out. If Davies so is concerned with the integrity of science, he should have spoken out. Instead, it took skeptics of global warming to expose the problems with Gore's film.

Did Davies, the "expert," not realize the errors? Did he learn about the problems from the very skeptics he is so critical of? Or does he deny that there are errors in the movie?

Supposedly, the hard evidence for man-made global warming exists somewhere. They seem to be keeping it hidden. Perhaps they think its too complicated for the common folk to understand.

But isn't that what they said about Parker Jensen? The "experts" said Parker would be dead within 3 months without immediate, intense chemotherapy. When Parker's dad looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion, he was villified by the establishment of "experts." They weren't willing to debate the evidence publicly--instead, they relied on the supposed mantle of their Phds and a news media that blinly followed. The Jensens were right. The "experts" were wrong. No apologies though, only "how were we to know?"

There is nothing wrong with being good stewards over the earth. My family re-cycles where possible, we keep lights off, the heater/air turned down when it is necessary to use. However, I don't add my mileage every day (which is limited anyway) to see how many bogus 'carbon credits' I need to buy. I've conserved because it is right to do. Not because Al Bore told me to.