Reader comments
Science targets coal impact

Good work, it's good to see Utah getting up to speed on global warming. Maybe soon we'll start thinking about problems associated with global over population!

Shouldn't we first have some evidence that CO2 is a significant factor in earth's climate?

Such evidence does not exist; in fact, the evidence shows that CO2 is a reaction to temperature, not a regulator.

Sensible rides again...Mr. (alleged) "Scientist", most global warming deniers are content to say that eevidence is equivocal. You top them by saying there is NO evidence. I salute you for your hubris, sir!

Prove me wrong--show me the evidence. Where's the hubris?

Well, all arguments about global warming aside, there is at least one glaring error in this story:

"Burning carbon fossil fuels, particularly coal, releases a tremendous amount of carbon dioxide pollution, the "greenhouse gas" most blamed for global warming. Also, the pollution itself is harmful, with or without warming."

Carbon dioxide is NOT a toxic pollutant like other emissions from burning coal, such as sulfur dioxide or fine particulates or mercury.

The ambient concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would have to be several times higher than it is now in order to cause negative health effects on the general population, and reducing CO2 emissions from power plants would not result in any obvious improvements in air quality.

Now if Mr. Bauman were discussing the negative effects of coal pollution in general, he would be correct. But that's not the context of the statement.

Over 2000 scientists have collaborated on the IPCC report on climate change, proving that CO2 is a major factor in our climate, contributing to the overall increase in the earth's temperature. I don't know who you are, Mr. Sensible, but you obviously don't study peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Sensible, a true scientist knows that science is never about "proof", but formulating hypotheses and testing them to see if they match collected data. That is why "minority report" dissenters like you should always get some kind of hearing, the length of the hearing depending on the bona fides of the dissenter. You have exhibited no bona fides, but you deserve an audience and an answer as much as any one of us.
Rather than the unobtainable "proof" you ask for, I will merely point out that it can be demonstrated and measured in a laboratory that CO2 absorbs photons of infrared light, and then re-emits them in unpredictable directions. This measured property of CO2 (first measured in 1896)is why global warming was proposed as a hypothesis, long before the climate data showed an increase in global mean temperature. It is now up to climatologists to verify (or invalidate) the argument, and that is why so much time is now being spent on it.
You can dissent away all you want, the real world of science is going to continue to investigate, and the evidence that some warming is anthropogenic is immensely persuasive.

Carbon dioxide IS toxic in high concentration. On the human body, it creates a more acidic pH. However, you would have to suck pure CO2 in order to accomplish this act.

I didn't ask for proof, only evidence.

Yes, I study peer-reviewed journals. That's where I discover the doubts of climate experts and uncertainties in the data.

Of course CO2 can absorb and retain heat, but I ask for evidence of CO2's effects in the real atmosphere, which is much more complex than a lab experiment. The evidence from the recent and distant past is that CO2 is a bit player, not a driver; a reaction, not a cause. I've never seen those data refuted.

There is significant uncertainty about the very existence of global warming and its magnitude. Examples: Warming of the past century (0.7 C) is smaller than the uncertainty in measuring earth's "average temperature" (plus/minus 2 C). Arctic warming has been caused by changes in Arctic ocean circulation (NASA, Dec. 2007), which is cyclical. Each thermometer is influenced by land use changes around it, including urban warming, so the global dataset is biased toward warming. Etc.

Uncertainty does not get its fair hearing in public forums and the IPCC, EPA, Congress, and certainly not in the press. That's why I keep writing here and elsewhere -- uncertainty is a Big Deal when you're making multi-trillion dollar decisions.

Nukes are the answer.

Dear Erasmus

I for one would be delighted if the scientific community would continue to investigate the referred subjects - energy, power generation, climate - the whole lot.

I worry when we keep getting told that "The science is settled" and we need to "Act". Won't bore you with the concerns about preferred action models.

Rgds

Science, by it's very nature, is never "settled". That's why Sensible asking for proof is an unscientific attitude ("Prove to me..."). For all topics - not just global warming - there comes a time when people, not just scientists, must decide how much attention and energy to give a minority report. We see minority reports, dissenting opinions that don't proportionally reflect the main body of science, in evolution, global warming, and many other "controversial" topics. Being in the minority is no sin, and sometimes the minority becomes the majority, conventional wisdom. But until that time, they must excuse the rest of us for spending less time on their concerns. Along with fossil fuels, another resource is limited; time to devote to an issue. We pay scientists for their discretion, to judge how much time to spend. In my (unscientific) opinion, we are spending a disproportionate amount of time on positions such as Sensible espouses. You may disagree.

To the several comments here:
1. CO2 toxicity
CO2 is not toxic at the concentrations it exists in the atmosphere (currently about 380 ppm). Perhaps I confused the reporter, who otherwise provided accurate information. The point I tried to make is that we work on both traditional and climate change environmental issues. To set the record straight, CO2 is toxic at concentrations above about 5% - far less than pure CO2. For example, the Apollo 13 astronauts were threatened by CO2 poisoning, not a lack of oxygen. However, there is no realistic concern about CO2 toxicity at atmospheric concentrations.
2. Global Climate Change Reality
Few credible remaining scientists question whether CO2 is either increasing because of human activity or influencing the climate. Many of the conservative positions of the past have since moderated, even by the sharpest critics of climate change. The view that it has no influence is erroneous - it has been a significant contributor to a livable climate on earth for eons. The questions revolve around the influence of the recent (man caused) increase in CO2. There is legitimate debate whether the cost of reducing CO2 emissions represents the best investment of public dollars and effort.

Mr. Baxter, let me just say that I appreciate your willingness to respond personally. I wish you good luck with your future endeavors.