Reader comments
Utah scientific: Warming disaster for seas

Mahershalalhashbaz | 7:55 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Oh know, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Please save us!

Sensible Scientist | 10:16 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Always beware the fear monger, especially when the phenomenon they propose is unprecedented, and especially when their proposed solutions give to them money or power.

Most outcomes of climate warming would be positive, including increased food production. The scares about storms and tropical diseases are unfounded.

Climate cooling is the really scary scenario.

Average Joe | 10:43 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Scientific evidence is scientific evidence. Period. It is easy to be an "armchair-quarterback" and an "armchair-scientist." Perhaps 'Mahershalalhashbaz' and 'Sensible Scientist' should attend the event, examine the evidence, and join the public dialogue.

Comments continue below

Sensible Scientist | 11:08 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

I study the evidence for a living. There is no evidence that CO2 plays a major role in climate change, ever--it's a reaction to climate change. Arctic warming over the past decade--the supposed "canary in the coal mine" for climate change--was caused by a decadal shift in Arctic ocean current directions according to last month's NASA report. Solar activity is the major control over Earth temperatures. Urban heat islands account for much of the temperature data showing warming. Global temperatures cooled for 40 years while CO2 increased in the 1900's. All this is fact gathered by climate scientists, not by me. Come on, Joe--evidence is evidence, period.

Average Joe | 12:27 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

In the article, McNutt never claimed that CO2 plays a major role in climate change, and neither did I--you're simply jumping to conclusions, 'Sensible Scientist.' And lengthy conclusions, too. Whew!
Unfortunately, you missed the point of McNutt's research. (It's time to get off your high-horse.)
McNutt's scientific evidence is focused on the impact of CO2 on the world's oceans, particularly ocean acidification, and the potential implications thereof.
Re-read the article, attend the lecture, listen to McNutt's evidence. Period.

Sensible Scientist | 12:50 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

I responded to the article, which begins with dire warnings of global warming, and to Average Joe's challenge to examine the evidence. I never quoted McNutt.

I would be delighted to attend the lecture.

Gerry | 1:08 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

This article reflects so much nonsense. CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 does not cause global warming. There is very ample evidence that warming of the earth is caused by variability in output from the sun. The climate models used by the IPCC are agenda driven, and take no thought for warming caused by water vapor, clouds, nitrogen, oxygen, and other gases, and the tremendous complexities of the atmospheric and ocean currents, and many other factors. Any body in their right mind should have the insight to know that the CO2 lie is far too easy an answer. It is so easy for little minds to concoct such an easy answer. The earth is far more complex. It they think mankind can change the earths course they are truly living in dreamland. I can't imagine the anybody wanting the place America back into the early 1800's based on this great falshood of socalled science.

The Scientists have spoken... | 1:37 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

I like that comment from Average Joe 10:43... "Scientific evidence is scientific evdence, period".

So now that the scientists have spoken... we must assume that the oceans are turning to acid and we just need to get used to the idea. This in spite of the scientists who were saying in the paper last week that the ice cap melt is diluting the oceans so they will soon no longer be saline.

It's hard to keep up with what the "Scientists" have said today. There's so much "Junk science" out there today. It's so hard to keep track of which human caused calamity is eventually going to get us.

I just do everything I can to conserve and deal with what happens. Personally I can't deal with each scientist's domesday prediction.

Something to think about and discuss... I thought progressive's main criticism of concervatives was... you are sheep and believe what your leaders tell you and are slow to change your mind. Sounds to me like the only difference is... who progressives and conservatives listen to and follow like sheep.

Nemesis | 2:22 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Sensible, your bald assertion that "increased food production" will result from global warming is a mite lacking in facts or logic. This unsupported assertion shows a lack of understanding of climate and agriculture. Many people think that food growing patterns will simply shift away from the equator, and that more of the land surface will be arable. That doesn't seem likely. The breadbasket for the world is the American Midwest, which in turn is a happy coincidence of soils and climate. The soils were bulldozed out of Ontario and Quebec in the last glacial advance, and came to rest in Illinois and Kansas (and elsewhere). If the climate zones shift north, don't expect the corn belt to follow. While lake-spattered Ontario is beautiful to look at, it has lost its soil to the U.S.

Georgie | 2:23 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Anyone who anonymously claims to be a scientist, is the first person I would suspect of "junk science".

Not A scientist | 4:22 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

The Scientists Have spoken,
You seem confused about acidity and tonicity. Acidity is a measure of hydrogen ions in water. Tonicity is a general term for how many particles of ALL substances are dissolved in water. It is very possible for water to be increasingly dilute (in terms of sodium, chloride, etc.) but at the same time increasingly acidic (in terms of hydrogen ions alone). (I'm not saying that's happening, mind you, I'm just saying the two conditions are not mutually exclusive). Please read up on acidity; it does, as the author here states, have great affect on the life of the oceans.

Average Joe | 10:07 a.m. Jan. 29, 2008

'Sensible Scientist,' the article was written by a Deseret News reporter, Joe Bauman. Since you are responding to the "dire warnings of global warming" in the article, you should take up your argument with the Deseret News, rather than making unfounded claims of "fear mongering" on the comment board.

Sensible Scientist | 12:48 p.m. Jan. 29, 2008

My claims of fear mongering are not unfounded--they are in the article. I never claimed that McNutt made them.

Georgie, there are too many risks of giving out one's identity in a public forum like this, especially when one is too easily located and contacted like I would be.

Another Scientist | 9:51 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

I attended Dr. McNutt's lecture last night. Hopefully some of the "skeptics" also attended as I am looking forward to their comments.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.