Reader comments
Warming could push Colorado to historic low
87 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
55 saves lives | 4:16 p.m. April 20, 2008
are they still trying to jam this nonsense down our throats?
Ok -here's a deal- we give you Liberals Socialized health care for all and you drop the global warming racket
I'm going to have an aneurism if I read one more chicken little global warming story and I may not be able to afford it myself
Ok -here's a deal- we give you Liberals Socialized health care for all and you drop the global warming racket
I'm going to have an aneurism if I read one more chicken little global warming story and I may not be able to afford it myself
DB | 4:29 p.m. April 20, 2008
I am sick of hearing about global warming!! I just want lower gas prices!!!!
Let's focus on getting lower prices, then focus on global warming. Our
government is like UDOT, they work on a thousand projects at one time for 10
years with slow results rather than focusing on a few or one project, then
coming up with a solution. This will never end. It's all a political
agenda.
Comments continue below
Robert | 4:49 p.m. April 20, 2008
To "I'm a Scientist"
I have 15+ years of research in the GPS industry. I have chaired sessions of ION (Institute of Navigation), and recently lead a technical team in the securing of a major defense contract. I have presented technical papers before US Government agencies, such as the NTIA/IRAC committee. A published example of the models that I have created are available on the NTIA/IRAC website. Any more bluffs you want to call?
No, I�m not a meteorologist � but I do appreciate that the earth�s weather patterns are a systems of literally thousands of complex variables. Throughout my career, I have watched in awe as scientist create incredibly complex models of even far more complex systems, and overwhelmed by the complexity of their model, they fail to appreciate how ridiculously oversimplified the model continues to be. This frequently becomes even more evident when funding is on the line! Scientist are not the gods they or many in society make them out to be!
continued...
I have 15+ years of research in the GPS industry. I have chaired sessions of ION (Institute of Navigation), and recently lead a technical team in the securing of a major defense contract. I have presented technical papers before US Government agencies, such as the NTIA/IRAC committee. A published example of the models that I have created are available on the NTIA/IRAC website. Any more bluffs you want to call?
No, I�m not a meteorologist � but I do appreciate that the earth�s weather patterns are a systems of literally thousands of complex variables. Throughout my career, I have watched in awe as scientist create incredibly complex models of even far more complex systems, and overwhelmed by the complexity of their model, they fail to appreciate how ridiculously oversimplified the model continues to be. This frequently becomes even more evident when funding is on the line! Scientist are not the gods they or many in society make them out to be!
continued...
Robert | 5:01 p.m. April 20, 2008
Honestly, I wish we would be better stewards of this amazing place God has
entrusted us to. I for one support REASONABLE and HONEST efforts for change.
The problem I have is the simple minded and almost universally dishonest
approach that environmentalist take to scare people into change and putting them
in charge. Many of the notable scientists supporting the GW hypothesis express
the same concerns (e.g. many have disdain for the likes of Al Gore for his
dishonesty). What I despise is the knee jerk reaction. For example
� many want us to see greater use of hybrid or electric
cars. Note that a gasoline engine burns around 30% efficient (I presume that
you are technical enough to understand this concept). However, coal fired power
plants burn far below this level (in the low 20% range). When one considers the
significant losses in the electrical power distribution network, it becomes
obvious that plugging in an electrically power vehicle to recharge actually
contributes to far greater CO2 emissions, plus SO2 that is released from the
power plants (H2O + SO2 = H2SO4 � sulfuric acid). But hey,
that�s many miles away from the simple-minded liberal, so
it must be better?
? | 5:02 p.m. April 20, 2008
I remember conservatives, chicken little and smog devices. If cars are required
to have smog controls we will no longer have cars. Today, we have cars that are
better.
Then, it was if Clinton gets reelected. After Bush, I miss Clinton. After Bush, Carter looks great.
How can anyone whose heard the hot air spewed by conservatives since Reagan was a arms dealer to Iran can't believe in human caused climate change?
When millions of Americans are employed in good jobs because of leading edge new energy technologies we will be glad we moved forward and weren't such in the past.
Then, it was if Clinton gets reelected. After Bush, I miss Clinton. After Bush, Carter looks great.
How can anyone whose heard the hot air spewed by conservatives since Reagan was a arms dealer to Iran can't believe in human caused climate change?
When millions of Americans are employed in good jobs because of leading edge new energy technologies we will be glad we moved forward and weren't such in the past.
To DB | 5:24 p.m. April 20, 2008
DB,
So... to heck with the planet you're leaving to your grandkids, all that matters is that you get cheap gas now?
The good news is that the worst possible thing you can do about high gas prices is to do nothing about global warming.
No conservation, no alternative energy research, no thinking about the energy costs associated with long solo commutes to work from your energy-hog home in your energy-hog SUV.
How's that $110/barrel oil working out for ya, anyway?
Trust me, the price is only going to climb higher. Too many Chinese and Indians are desperate to live like you and I do to ever significantly reduce the demand (and therefore the price) for fossil fuels.
Drilling Alaska completely dry will net us only a couple of years' worth of oil, which won't last even that long because the rest of the world will snap it up at the going market price as fast as it comes out of the ground.
So... to heck with the planet you're leaving to your grandkids, all that matters is that you get cheap gas now?
The good news is that the worst possible thing you can do about high gas prices is to do nothing about global warming.
No conservation, no alternative energy research, no thinking about the energy costs associated with long solo commutes to work from your energy-hog home in your energy-hog SUV.
How's that $110/barrel oil working out for ya, anyway?
Trust me, the price is only going to climb higher. Too many Chinese and Indians are desperate to live like you and I do to ever significantly reduce the demand (and therefore the price) for fossil fuels.
Drilling Alaska completely dry will net us only a couple of years' worth of oil, which won't last even that long because the rest of the world will snap it up at the going market price as fast as it comes out of the ground.
gp | 5:27 p.m. April 20, 2008
Let me say that CO2 is not a pollutant. I don't care what the Supreme
Court said. I don't care what Al Gore says, I don't care what
NASA's Jim Hansen says. CO2 contributed very little to global warming.
The earth and it's complex climate system cannot in the very least be
compared to Venus. The truth is, that environmentalism has a Maltheusium agenda.
That is, that because there are so many human beings, all striving to have and
use the earths resources, then it MUST be bad. CO2 caused global warming is
their answer. With that agenda, they can influence the world leaders to reduce
population, force mankind to go back to the 1700's. Sure, let's put
the non-endangered polar bear on the agenda list and make him an endangered
species, then they can sue any body in the country for killing the polar bear,
and that's just what they want. Somehow they believe that mankind
isn't compatable with the earth, therefore, he needs to go.
Money!! | 5:43 p.m. April 20, 2008
It's all about the money people!! I agree with Robert, these people(Gore)
are using this global warming thing to get rich! I remember the Hurricane
forcast as well and the only thing that happened was Oil prices went up $5 a
barrel on the news.(the high Oil prices is a fruad as well) I wish we could get
some "Global Warming" this Spring as it has been very cold! These
"global warming" Scientists'are in need of more funding thus the
continued confussion from their mouths. What a Joke!!
Bomar | 5:56 p.m. April 20, 2008
These clowns can't forecast what the weather is going to be next week,let
alone next year or for the next century. And by the way, you koolaid drinkers
and Algore worshipers, is there a bigger hypocrite any where. He who flies
around the world in private planes, rides around in big SUV's and limos and
lives in a house that uses enough energy to service 20 average homes. Obviously
he is also over consuming on food judging from his bulk. Drink on all you
ecofreaks.
Johnson | 6:11 p.m. April 20, 2008
The tone of anti-intellectualism in many of these posts is alarming. The
Western World has prospered in large part because of our commitment to expanding
knowledge through a rigorous, peer-reviewed science. The individual scientists
can be alarmists or composed, dishonest or full of integrity, Republican or
Democrat, with biases as all humans have. But the METHOD of peer-review that we
subject these fallible humans to is a good way to screen out their frailties.
The peer review process that holders of a master's or a PhD had to endure,
ends with the acknowledged "elders" of their subject tying their own
personal reputations to the candidate's. Like a temple recommend, that
alphabet soup at the end of their names is the certification to the world that,
"I am a recognized authority on __________ (whatever the topic is").
The posters who casually disparage the science coming out of the U.S. Geological
Survey are anti-science; to blithely dispute such an institution is
anti-science, and is not going to help this country or any of its problems.
ALLTHEWAY | 6:11 p.m. April 20, 2008
All a what to know is were did the acid rain go to?
Robert'sConscience | 6:12 p.m. April 20, 2008
Robert;
No "scientist" (sic) can expect an educated public to take his/her anonymous claims on faith. Other scientists have put their names to their posts; do you have the guts and integrity to? You will gain immeasurable respect if you do. If you continue to anonymously claim "scientist" standing, however, we are going to view that as not only unlikely, but also dishonest. A true scientist exposes their work to the light of day, so that it can be tested.
In reponse to your electricity comment, of course you neglect to mention that electricity can be generated from hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, geothermal, and solar facilities. Only in coal-fire facilities do they generate SO2 and such other pollutants. I would think that a "scientist" would realize this.
No "scientist" (sic) can expect an educated public to take his/her anonymous claims on faith. Other scientists have put their names to their posts; do you have the guts and integrity to? You will gain immeasurable respect if you do. If you continue to anonymously claim "scientist" standing, however, we are going to view that as not only unlikely, but also dishonest. A true scientist exposes their work to the light of day, so that it can be tested.
In reponse to your electricity comment, of course you neglect to mention that electricity can be generated from hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, geothermal, and solar facilities. Only in coal-fire facilities do they generate SO2 and such other pollutants. I would think that a "scientist" would realize this.
JayMar | 6:17 p.m. April 20, 2008
It's hard to believe the Deseret News would publish this tripe, but, I
guess they have to appear to support a Governor, who like a lemming, has jumped
on the Global Warming Hoax. This Planet has just experienced the coldest Winter
in 100 years. China, the worst winter in its recorded history...oh, yes, blame
it on global warming. It would be an absolute miracle if these Global Warming
Fanatics would look at Common Sense and Facts, of which they have none and
refuse to want the truth. This idiocy is costing the taxpayers at the gasoline
pump (ethanol)and at the bread counter because of the movement of grain to gas.
And, it costs the consumer 2 to 3 times as much to produce ethanol as it does
the same amount of gasoline. Please, don't pass off on the public this
collection of nonsense and untruths as legitimate journalism....you are a part
of this abominable sham. So what does that make the Deseret Morning News.
Enough Said.
L | 6:48 p.m. April 20, 2008
While there are several posts I would take issue with,I'll mention one of
the earlier-500 years@7:16-
I certainly wasn't here 500 years ago, I have no first hand knowledge,but I do understood that most people thought the world was flat.
There are some records from 500 years ago which may indicate that life in the Colorado River basin was not as nice as it is now, and whether by natural warming or man-made warming may not be in the future.
Sure we know there are natural warming & cooling cycles & even cold winters within a warming cycle,but some things seem to indicate things are accelerating.
In 200-words you can't go into the science,but from what I have seen it looks like there is faster warming in the last century more than others. I am"old"and I won't be around long. We have really modified our habitat in the SW with pipelines etc., but travel some other places and see if you would like to live there(here) 500 years from now when it is dryer. IT SEEM TO ME THAT IF WE CAN DO ANYTHING TO IMPROVE THE FUTURE FOR OUR FAMILIES....WE SHOULD TRY! Clean air might even good now!
I certainly wasn't here 500 years ago, I have no first hand knowledge,but I do understood that most people thought the world was flat.
There are some records from 500 years ago which may indicate that life in the Colorado River basin was not as nice as it is now, and whether by natural warming or man-made warming may not be in the future.
Sure we know there are natural warming & cooling cycles & even cold winters within a warming cycle,but some things seem to indicate things are accelerating.
In 200-words you can't go into the science,but from what I have seen it looks like there is faster warming in the last century more than others. I am"old"and I won't be around long. We have really modified our habitat in the SW with pipelines etc., but travel some other places and see if you would like to live there(here) 500 years from now when it is dryer. IT SEEM TO ME THAT IF WE CAN DO ANYTHING TO IMPROVE THE FUTURE FOR OUR FAMILIES....WE SHOULD TRY! Clean air might even good now!
Laughing in the Left Coast | 6:53 p.m. April 20, 2008
Bomar: Is this conservative class envy? Gore needs a large defensible parameter.
The lawmakers attacked by anthrax read like the whose who of the conservative
hate list.
It's Al Gore, not Algore. I don't want you to look ignorant.
What? You act like conserving is like the sky falling.
It's Al Gore, not Algore. I don't want you to look ignorant.
What? You act like conserving is like the sky falling.
Stop junk science | 7:09 p.m. April 20, 2008
This is the worst junk science and scare tactics I have seen since...the ozone
lies!
For each scientists that proposes human caused global warming there are three that will debunk them. Stop believing this is unanimous science, it is far from it. Those who won't hear the other arguments against global warming are narrow minded, manipulative, and agenda driven. Now because of these scientific scare tactics, fuel is outrageously expensive, and so is food etc. Theres a better way than fear!
We are lemons if we don't consider ALL the science on global warming.
For each scientists that proposes human caused global warming there are three that will debunk them. Stop believing this is unanimous science, it is far from it. Those who won't hear the other arguments against global warming are narrow minded, manipulative, and agenda driven. Now because of these scientific scare tactics, fuel is outrageously expensive, and so is food etc. Theres a better way than fear!
We are lemons if we don't consider ALL the science on global warming.
Anonymous | 7:12 p.m. April 20, 2008
What a worthless story, "We're fairly confident the water supply is
not going to crash,"...but the headline leads the reader to believe
otherwise, unless you read clear to the end of the story, which few people do.
Typical tabloid journalism. It can be ignored, the experts are no better (often
worse) than flipping a coin, or asking grandma what the future will hold.
Robert | 7:27 p.m. April 20, 2008
My Name is Robert Horton. MSEE, NC State University 1995, 3.9GPA. OK
Braveheart, what are your credentials? Are you brave enough to post yours, or
are you the real coward
And Yes, I understand there are numerous sources of power. Unfortunately, coal fired and natural gas, the two biggest CO2 producers, are the by far the most prevalent sources in the US. The environmentalist have succeed in more or less eliminating every other clean source (windmills kill the birds, Hydro kills the fish, nuclear will make us have three-headed babies, on and on�). Our posts here are limited to 200 words, so obviously I cannot make exhaustive arguments.
I vote nuclear! The French are building the latest technology pebble core reactors as fast as they can. It�s super clean with no heavy water and results in substantially less contaminated material. I would vote for more wind power, but none of our liberal buddies (case in point � the Kennedys) want to see these quite, graceful giants turning off the coast of their million dollar beach resorts.
And Yes, I understand there are numerous sources of power. Unfortunately, coal fired and natural gas, the two biggest CO2 producers, are the by far the most prevalent sources in the US. The environmentalist have succeed in more or less eliminating every other clean source (windmills kill the birds, Hydro kills the fish, nuclear will make us have three-headed babies, on and on�). Our posts here are limited to 200 words, so obviously I cannot make exhaustive arguments.
I vote nuclear! The French are building the latest technology pebble core reactors as fast as they can. It�s super clean with no heavy water and results in substantially less contaminated material. I would vote for more wind power, but none of our liberal buddies (case in point � the Kennedys) want to see these quite, graceful giants turning off the coast of their million dollar beach resorts.
SnowBoy | 9:06 p.m. April 20, 2008
Nuclear is hot! Energy forever! Cheap and safe! The environmentalists are funded
by Arabs who want to keep us nursing on their wells. Dump em.
I teach science! | 9:03 p.m. April 20, 2008
All of you anti-GW afficinados who pass yourselves off as knowing what is
scientific and not scientific show your ignorance of the scientific facts by how
you spout fossil-fuel driven drivel and the like.
First, a scientific approach requires that one to look at the money trail as a major point of establishing credibility... in other words, there can be no conflict of interest in the process, and nothing corrupts the credibility of a scientific study more than monied interests that insist on reviewing and commenting on the final data, even determining what will be published or not... and so it has been with EVERY scientific study/report published that is funded by fossil-fuel interests... and I mean EVERY study done with their financing. The fact that every fossel-fuel funded study finds GW warming squarely in the negative is itself, from a scientific perspective, questionable.
In fact, not a one of the fossel-fuel studies raw data has been subjected to independent scientific peer review... making these so called 'scientific' studies the firebrand of bad-science posing as good science. One might say that the rules of advertising apply more to these fossel-fuel funded studies than the rules of good science.
First, a scientific approach requires that one to look at the money trail as a major point of establishing credibility... in other words, there can be no conflict of interest in the process, and nothing corrupts the credibility of a scientific study more than monied interests that insist on reviewing and commenting on the final data, even determining what will be published or not... and so it has been with EVERY scientific study/report published that is funded by fossil-fuel interests... and I mean EVERY study done with their financing. The fact that every fossel-fuel funded study finds GW warming squarely in the negative is itself, from a scientific perspective, questionable.
In fact, not a one of the fossel-fuel studies raw data has been subjected to independent scientific peer review... making these so called 'scientific' studies the firebrand of bad-science posing as good science. One might say that the rules of advertising apply more to these fossel-fuel funded studies than the rules of good science.
Johnson | 9:21 p.m. April 20, 2008
Kudos for you, Mr. Horton; now to your post. I presume that MSEE means
"Master of Science in Electrical Engineering"? Or am I mistaken?
What was the title of your thesis? The reason I ask is, I want to know what
your field of expertise is in, no offense intended. Of course, your wife could
be a medical doctor, but that would not make her an expert in climatology.
Electrical engineering doesn't sound like it is too close to climatology;
but you should deserve credit for being an authority in your field.
By the way, I don't know who is the "Braveheart" you are referring to, not having noticed them above; but these other people are not claiming to be scientists, which is what you did. Yours is the credibility that needs to be established. I am not a scientist, but a scientifically literate observer.
Your animus towards environmentalist needs some correction. I AM an environmentalist (whatever that means, everyone says I am, anyway). And I can tell you that no environmentalist organization I know has opposed wind-generated electricity. The international organization most associated with birds - Audubon - has specifically endorsed wind power, but properly sited.
By the way, I don't know who is the "Braveheart" you are referring to, not having noticed them above; but these other people are not claiming to be scientists, which is what you did. Yours is the credibility that needs to be established. I am not a scientist, but a scientifically literate observer.
Your animus towards environmentalist needs some correction. I AM an environmentalist (whatever that means, everyone says I am, anyway). And I can tell you that no environmentalist organization I know has opposed wind-generated electricity. The international organization most associated with birds - Audubon - has specifically endorsed wind power, but properly sited.
Johnson | 9:30 p.m. April 20, 2008
Robert, the geothermal and solar sources of electricity seem ideal for Utah, and
no enviro groups I've heard of oppose them (unless you have info to the
contrary). Just correcting your statements.
Of course, you are right about most if not all of them opposing nuclear.
The reason I think you are wrong, is that many times climatologists (which you, admittedly, are not) have shown me data which was convincing on its own; but beyond that the earth scientists were quite confident that anthropogenic gases were responsible for some changes in our climate. And these data were not just computer models, but collected data that showed historical comparisons between climate and industrial activity. Though I applaud your forthrightness, these expects have consistently convinced me for a couple decades now.
People, in my experience, often become personally offended by this or that position from an opposition, and they cannot shake a permanent emotional state about that group. Many people have that sort of reaction with SUWA, or the NRA, or the GOP, or the Clintons. You seem to have a grudge match going with "environmentalists".
By the way, GPS rocks, and is a great tool for science.
Of course, you are right about most if not all of them opposing nuclear.
The reason I think you are wrong, is that many times climatologists (which you, admittedly, are not) have shown me data which was convincing on its own; but beyond that the earth scientists were quite confident that anthropogenic gases were responsible for some changes in our climate. And these data were not just computer models, but collected data that showed historical comparisons between climate and industrial activity. Though I applaud your forthrightness, these expects have consistently convinced me for a couple decades now.
People, in my experience, often become personally offended by this or that position from an opposition, and they cannot shake a permanent emotional state about that group. Many people have that sort of reaction with SUWA, or the NRA, or the GOP, or the Clintons. You seem to have a grudge match going with "environmentalists".
By the way, GPS rocks, and is a great tool for science.
guy smiley | 9:46 p.m. April 20, 2008
I just had to scrape about an eighth of an inch of global warming of my windshield. In the middle of a April for heaven's sake.
green mormon architect | 9:59 p.m. April 20, 2008
It is personally sad for me to read the anger and mistrust pent up in these
comments. Does the health of our planet care about politics? What person out
there doesn�t care about preserving the beautiful life we
have here on earth? Endless bickering about science or beliefs will not solve
anything and will never convince anyone. The reality is that the current
lifestyle of most of us Americans is not sustainable, meaning that it cannot
continue in its present course indefinitely. Resources, including water, are
not unlimited. We don�t know what the future brings, but
shouldn�t we be collectively prepared?
The health and quality of all life on the earth is a gift from God and is sacred. Why can�t we unite on these principles by preserving a sustainable lifestyle � one where all forms of life can co-exist in harmony? It has nothing to do with politics, science, or religion. It only has to do with how we view and treat our mutual home.
The health and quality of all life on the earth is a gift from God and is sacred. Why can�t we unite on these principles by preserving a sustainable lifestyle � one where all forms of life can co-exist in harmony? It has nothing to do with politics, science, or religion. It only has to do with how we view and treat our mutual home.
As for the data... | 10:42 p.m. April 20, 2008
All scientific credentials aside, it's rather hard to take the USGS
seriously when their own hard data show the 30-year annual precipitation
averages for every state in the Colorado River basin have increased since
1930.
At least for the past 70 years, the data demonstrate that the climate of the southwestern US has been getting wetter, not drier.
Because URL's are not permitted in the comments, unfortunately I can't post the link. But Googling "USGS Precipitation 30-year averages Colorado" should get you on the right track.
At least for the past 70 years, the data demonstrate that the climate of the southwestern US has been getting wetter, not drier.
Because URL's are not permitted in the comments, unfortunately I can't post the link. But Googling "USGS Precipitation 30-year averages Colorado" should get you on the right track.
Phoney Science | 10:58 p.m. April 20, 2008
Go to your respective news source, Utahns. Whether that is Fox news or CNN or
some other news source that actually cares to report what is really happening,
both share similar stories. The four major groups monitoring global temperature
reported a drop of .6 degrees C from January of 2007 to January of 2008. This
happened during a period of 4% increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere. There
has been NO MEASURED INCREASE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE SINCE 1998. As a result of
this, the ice mass surrounding the continent of antartica is the largest it has
been since we started taking measurements in the 70's.
In the 40's to the 70's, more countries became industrialized and more people began driving cars, considering a percentage of increase, then ever before and yet during this period of time there was a distinct cooling trend despite increase in CO2 emissions. When my father was in High School the global alarmism was "CO2 emissions are going to send us into another ice age." Then, the 70's role around and the tune changes. The fact is, there are millions of factors controlling the environment that cannot be considered fully by our current scientific abilities.
In the 40's to the 70's, more countries became industrialized and more people began driving cars, considering a percentage of increase, then ever before and yet during this period of time there was a distinct cooling trend despite increase in CO2 emissions. When my father was in High School the global alarmism was "CO2 emissions are going to send us into another ice age." Then, the 70's role around and the tune changes. The fact is, there are millions of factors controlling the environment that cannot be considered fully by our current scientific abilities.
AZ | 1:21 a.m. April 21, 2008
I just washed my car
Robert | 6:29 a.m. April 21, 2008
Never claimed I was an climatologists, just a scientist in the GPS/Electrical
Engineering field with a thorough understanding of the scientific method and its
weaknesses, especially when one considers the unfortunate nature of man when
their livelihood is on the line. As I said before, I have seen 1st hand the
failures of the scientific method of peir review when the body of reviewers have
a unified interest in seening a particular outcome. Actually, this is not the
case in the GW debate. There are plenty of scientific desenters, some claim
even a majority, but contrary to the scientific method, they are either ignored
or castigated for daring to not jump on the bandwagon. The responses to my
comments in this forum clearly bare this out.
Johnson | 8:54 a.m. April 21, 2008
I repeat, to deaf ears apparently, my originally comment; anyone who thinks the
USGS is lacking in credibility has an anti-science problem.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | 10:26 a.m. April 21, 2008
The last ten (10) years have shown NO warming trend. The warming trend from
about 1976 peaked in 1998, and every year since has been cooler. The fact is
that the urgency by people like Al Gore and his liberal friends to enact all
sorts of laws to "fight global warming" is based on their fear that
the current trend will continue and that eventually, people will notice that
warming has stopped, and they will lose their ability to take over control of
the economy. The laws to "fight the ozone hole" were enacted in a
hurry, before people realized that the ozone hole is there because there is no
sunlight over the south pole in winter, which is needed to make ozone. When the
sun comes out in spring, the ozone comes back, without any help from mankind.
The irony is that the laws banning chlorine based refrigerants to "fight
the ozone hole" led to use of new chemicals, that are adding 2 to 3 times
the amount of heat that the Kyoto Treaty is supposed to eliminate! The only
thing we know for sure is that precipitous government action just makes things
worse!
Scientifc Models | 2:01 p.m. April 21, 2008
"Garbage in garbage out" is the best way to describe these
mathematical models presented by alarmist environmentalists. My Ecology Course
Book The Economy of Nature by Esteemed Environmentalist Robert E. Ricklefs is a
perfect example of this. On page 18 he observes that global carbon dioxide
models failed to accurately predict CO2 content in the atmosphere because it did
not take into account the many mechanisms that take CO2 out of the air; a couple
of these mentioned are diffusion of CO2 out of the air into water sources and
the removal of CO2 by regeneration of forests. How arrogant of us to think we
can take all of the complexity of nature and stuff it into some numbers and
variables.
I tend to be more conservative politically speaking, but I have plenty of concern for the environment. Do environmentalists really think that us conservatives like going outside and breathing in smog? Or that we love to see garbage lining our highways? I myself am an Eagles Scout, which requires a great deal of work and earning of merit badges. Most of those merit badges are for outdoor activities, in particular, there is an Environmental Science merit badge.
I tend to be more conservative politically speaking, but I have plenty of concern for the environment. Do environmentalists really think that us conservatives like going outside and breathing in smog? Or that we love to see garbage lining our highways? I myself am an Eagles Scout, which requires a great deal of work and earning of merit badges. Most of those merit badges are for outdoor activities, in particular, there is an Environmental Science merit badge.
Pinchot | 8:53 p.m. April 21, 2008
Scientific Models;
I'm curious; do you have the same contempt for the technologies that are currently helping find oil? Because it's the illustrious history of geologists, both industry and government, modeling Earth's systems that have made us pretty dang good at it. Front and center in this scientific revolution is the USGS. To dismiss them as "alarmist environmentalists" is ignorant beyond belief on your part. Or perhaps arrogant. Well, one of those "-gants".
To blithely assume that these respected scientists don't know about CO2 absorption by the oceans or forests is, well, again, ignorant beyond belief. I'm sorry, this anti-science discussion has beggared my ability to describe it.
I'm curious; do you have the same contempt for the technologies that are currently helping find oil? Because it's the illustrious history of geologists, both industry and government, modeling Earth's systems that have made us pretty dang good at it. Front and center in this scientific revolution is the USGS. To dismiss them as "alarmist environmentalists" is ignorant beyond belief on your part. Or perhaps arrogant. Well, one of those "-gants".
To blithely assume that these respected scientists don't know about CO2 absorption by the oceans or forests is, well, again, ignorant beyond belief. I'm sorry, this anti-science discussion has beggared my ability to describe it.
RR | 9:14 a.m. April 23, 2008
Gotta love global warming! We are just ending 6 months of a cold winter, and
with snow gone, it's rains a lot. In Canada, they had "Earth
Day" to tell people about this issue, and it snowed.
This topic is becoming a joke, instead of a real topic. Too much scientific evidence is coming out to support this.
This topic is becoming a joke, instead of a real topic. Too much scientific evidence is coming out to support this.
Doug | 5:32 a.m. April 24, 2008
Ok, maybe there is global warming and maybe there isn't. I tend to lean
toward the latter myself. However, the fact remains that there is a lot of gunk
in the air that wasn't there 50 or 60 years ago and if there is a way to
reduce this stuff, whether it is attributed to "global warming" or
not, isn't it a good idea? If we can find a way to run cars without foreign
oil or without polluting the air, isn't it a good idea. Forget the global
warming debate...how about seeing across the valley debate... or the diminishing
the winter inversion debate. I'm all for that. And if it might somehow get
the "gloom and doom-ers" off of our backs then theres a bonus in it
too. Nothing wrong in in wanting clean air just because its clean, is there?
I'm no scientist | 8:50 a.m. April 24, 2008
Okay, I used to be one of those right wing Republican types until recently. I
admit that I'm no scientist but do I need to be to have common sense? Does
it really require that I have a PhD and a library full of thesis papers to know
that motor vehicle exhaust isn't healthy? I don't think so.
Who among us is going to breathe the fumes of a running motor vehicle and try to convince the world that is not doing any damage to the air we breathe or our environment? C'mon people! Multiply that times the endless number of vehicles out there, plus the other similar sources of pollution and you get the picture.
Duh! You right wing, refuse to budge on the obvious types make me laugh. Get real. It's about time we wake up to the seriousness of the environmental situation before it becomes a crisis like the housing market now is. You are the same people that ignored those warnings and are still in denial. How bad do things have to get before you admit that we need to change our habits and care for the environment so our grandkids have a future?
Who among us is going to breathe the fumes of a running motor vehicle and try to convince the world that is not doing any damage to the air we breathe or our environment? C'mon people! Multiply that times the endless number of vehicles out there, plus the other similar sources of pollution and you get the picture.
Duh! You right wing, refuse to budge on the obvious types make me laugh. Get real. It's about time we wake up to the seriousness of the environmental situation before it becomes a crisis like the housing market now is. You are the same people that ignored those warnings and are still in denial. How bad do things have to get before you admit that we need to change our habits and care for the environment so our grandkids have a future?
Anon | 1:32 p.m. April 24, 2008
Hey Kevin in Texas - the mountains run from North to South and have East and
West faces Geez just like the whole theory - Get the facts
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
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.
Tourists take in the view of the Colorado River at Horseshoe Bend near Page, Ariz., last fall.
- Death toll from floods in Saudi 8:40 a.m.
- 3 Americans die in cargo plane crash 8:34 a.m.
- Saturday, Sunday on TV 8:31 a.m.
- Chalet readied for house arrest 8:29 a.m.
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust 2:01 a.m.
- Wildcats face tough defense 1:59 a.m.
- Aggies look to Idaho for an example 1:58 a.m.
- Aggies host Southern Utah 1:53 a.m.
- Cougars turn back Wildcats' 1:44 a.m.
- Cougar women lose at home 1:41 a.m.
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
266 - Protests against Phoenix LDS temple212
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin133
- Boys basketball rankings128
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies109
- Letters: Trump card for believers93
- Rivalry Week is highly profane85
- Utah, BYU are top choices for bowls75
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
Reading this blog gives us such relief that America will never turn away from...
Ask Bonco. He says execution is the key. No really, he did. He's said it...
To Regretful, I'm right there with you. I don't understand how these guys...
"There are no mysteries in today's battle between the Cougars and Utes." -...
Is deflation another word for devaluation? It seems to imply that....
will Utah hang on to the 8th seed in the West? OKC plays HOU at home next as...
Oh, yes, some hacked e-mails completely explain why ice caps are melting,...
I love it when Danny Hazsard writes I often think he must have no life at all...
Our founding fathers purposely framed the Constitution to be a flexible...
I can't imagine that subsidizing 100,000+ illegal immigrants and their...
Advertisements
You're a scientist? Really? What papers have you published, on what subjects, and in what peer-reviewed science journals?
You're actually qualified to critique papers on climate data authored by PhDs?
I didn't think so.
Do you know the difference between background noise and and a statistically demonstrable trend? Apparently not, judging by your comments about NWS predictions.
So, faking scientific research is "very common"? Do tell us more. Cite the faked GW research and the journals in which it was published.
Following the $$ is a good idea, however. All, and I mean ALL of what passes for "research" supporting the "GW is a hoax" position derives from the fossil-fuel industry.