Reader comments
Readers' forum: Climate debate one-sided

Its Over | 2:53 a.m. July 2, 2009

There has been a debate and its over! So get over it!

Timj | 4:55 a.m. July 2, 2009

First mistake: using the word "scientist." I'd say 95% or more of scientists know very little about climate science. So it really doesn't matter what that 95% believes.
How about we find out what climate scientists believe? You know, people who actually know what they're talking about?

OLD NEWS! | 5:44 a.m. July 2, 2009

Excuse me, but the things I learned about global warming 20 years ago are now coming to fruition. I guess they don't teach much about that when you're getting a GED.

The debate began a couple decades ago when there was time to mitigate some of the problems we NOW face. Because of arrogance and greed, and bushco, the problem is much more dire.

The American people are willing to do what it takes to maintain livability on Earth. That's why we rejected the party of Bushco. Only greed-driven selfish people can't admit there's a problem.

Comments continue below

David, David, David | 5:57 a.m. July 2, 2009

All you say is true. But your point is?? This is the way it is done. There is no other way. Fall in line or we will do to you what we do to other disenters. It is only a matter of time before we have re-education gulags for people like you.

liberal larry | 6:41 a.m. July 2, 2009

While it is true that there are at least two sides to every argument, it doesn't mean that there are two GOOD sides to every discussion. Most climate scientists, with the exception of ones funded by petroleum companies, or wacky right wing think tanks, are convinced of man's role in global warming. Heck, all you have to do is look at a graph of average global temperature next one of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and you can see that something is going on.

Chuck Anziulewicz | 7:40 a.m. July 2, 2009

Ever heard of Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute? Those are quasi-religious organizations that insist that there is no such thing as evolution, and that all of Creation took place roughly 6,000 years ago. The people that work there like to call themselves "scientists" also. What's your point?

No, the debate is not over | 8:12 a.m. July 2, 2009

I'm old enough to remember lots of scientific studies that showed no harm in tobacco use. Most of these studies were funded by organizations that had vested interests in the outcome, such as tobacco producers. It has since become almost an article of faith among the left to simply discount any studies funded by such organizations.

But even though I read example after example of scientists pushed towards pro-global warming conclusions by funding sources and political forces, I fail to see any comparable skepticism applied to their studies.

This "science" has become thoroughly polluted by political interests.

Oh brother... | 8:24 a.m. July 2, 2009

Global warming _has_ been debated, exhaustively, in the appropriate forum - peer-reviewed professional science journals.

The debate _has_ been vigorous and exhaustive. The data have been analyzed in more ways than you can imagine.

It's all there for anyone to see. All you have to do is go to the library and look, and the know the difference between science journals and op-ed pieces.

What you're seeing now is not "debate," you're seeing a last-minute desperation PR blitz sponsored by industry and political groups who don't care a whit about the planet, they care about their money.

RedShirt | 8:29 a.m. July 2, 2009

To "liberal larry | 6:41 a.m." here are 4 sources that are not funded through oil companies. Also, one of them has a graph that shows solar cycle duration and temperature increases. Amazingly they are much more closely related than CO2 and temperature increases. When you look at it, the temperature increases before CO2 increases.

Read the following articles:

"The Geologic Record and Climate Change" by Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton University

"Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?" by Nir J. Shaviv and Ján Veizer

"The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate" by Yongjin Wang, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Yaoqi He, Xinggong Kong, Zhisheng An, Jiangying Wu, Megan J. Kelly, Carolyn A. Dykoski, Xiangdong Li

"180 Years accurate CO2 - Gasanalysis of Air by Chemical Methods" by Georg Beck (This one shows that there are some serious data errors in the IPCC data for CO2)

Re: liberal larry | 8:36 a.m. July 2, 2009

I did. I looked at 2 graphs of Average Global Temperature (one taken via satellite and one taken at measurement stations around the globe) vs ambient CO2 concentration. The data was for the last 12 years, and the temperature on both graphs is distinctly trending down as ambient CO2 has steadily risen. The publisher of the report? A top scientist at the EPA. He concluded his report by stating that the earth is in a period of global
cooling until the year 2030. Hmmm. That supports the findings of a recent NASA study that shows global climate change is caused by natural solar cycles and not CO2. Now that's an inconvenient truth.

RedShirt | 8:41 a.m. July 2, 2009

To "liberal larry | 6:41 a.m." now that I have given you some non-oil funded sources of information showing that solar or cosmic ray fluctuations are responsible for warming, lets go over some studies that prove various points of Global Warming to be wrong:

"Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979" which shows that this last winter the sea ice levels were nearly equal to 1979. FYI 1979 was the first year satelites were able to give an accurate measurement of sea ice, which happened to be during a cooling cycle.

Florida State University tracks the cyclone energy, and has a web site dedicated to this. According to GW, cyclones should be getting stronger as the earth warms, yet their graphs show a decline in overall energy since 1993.

"Change is a cold certainty" where the University of Adelaide along with other scientists explain that the total ice in Antartica is either constant or growing in size.

"MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon" is about a MIT professor who explains that Triton (an uninhabited moon) has been showing signs of global warming at the same time the earth is.

Micawber | 8:44 a.m. July 2, 2009

For an issue upon which there is no debate, I sure read a lot from climate change deniers in the letters to the editor of this newspaper.

To the writer | 8:57 a.m. July 2, 2009

The letter writer suggests there are "plenty of scientists" who don't subscribe to global warming. I challenge the letter write to name even one. But I've got two catches:

1. The scientist actually needs to be a climatologist (because a biologist, for example, isn't going to know anything more about climate than my accountant or any other random person).
2. The climatologist can't be on the payroll of an oil company, an energy conglomerate, a conservative think tank, or a business lobby.

If you can find me one person who meets these two criteria and doesn't subscribe to climate change, I will never post on this topic again.

Anonymous | 8:59 a.m. July 2, 2009

Spoken like a person who doesnt know what science is. Someone who gets his news from rush et al. You are irrelevant, get use to it.

JMT | 9:00 a.m. July 2, 2009

I would love to debate a global warming advocate. There are so many examples of flawed science or open propaganda disguised as science.

A couple facts. About a year ago a scientist discovered that the temp readings coming from Goddard were in error. These are controlled by the godfather of global warming James Hansen. Hansen admitted that there were errors causing global temps to read higher than they actually were and yet this didn't change a thing.

It is being reported over and over again that the ice caps are melting. What gets little report is something like covered in the Dnews just a few months back: Last year, in a surprise over 2 million square miles of new ice sheet was formed.

The polar bear story, poor bears losing their home. Not so, a short little story based on a couple isolated incidents. What is rarely reported is that there are more polar bears now then at any time in reported history and that the population continues to increase.

Lies, dang lies then environmentalists.

Oh I would love to debate one of these alarmists and just use their own facts. It is a lie!

Knowwhat | 9:02 a.m. July 2, 2009

The point comes down to two questions. What is the optimal global temperature for the planet and humanity? Is the current temperature rise within normal variation of historical earth temperatures? Would on off you manmade experts please answer these.

wow | 9:21 a.m. July 2, 2009

The manipulative Obamafest media made it clear in the last election that they have no desire to present any point of view other than the intolerant left-wing interprettion of everyhting.

Y2K was a big deal too. NOT

Environmental sensitivity is a great idea - mass hysteria is not.

@Its Over | 2:53 a.m. | 9:39 a.m. July 2, 2009

Is that you Al? Your up late.

It is an inconvenient truth that many find you to be a hypocrite and an unauthoritative source on the subject of the climate. And all your disciples who are the beneficiaries of this hoax ought to be ashamed. And you call oil profiteering immoral?

Al, it doesn't matter how many times you keep screaming "the debate is over, I am right, and you must concede," it will never make it true.

Now, go back to bed and dream on.

@OLD NEWS! | 5:44 a.m. | 9:48 a.m. July 2, 2009

I remember 40 years ago they were teaching global cooling and a new ice age right around the corner.

It is amazing how the weak minded can be manipulated by those who wear the title of educator, scientist, or authority.

Real education my friend, GED or otherwise, is about learning to think. If I were you I would demand a refund because I believed they failed to do their job. However, I do believe they succeeded in their indoctrination which pretty much sums up higher education today.

Who | 9:48 a.m. July 2, 2009

"There are plenty of scientists who do not believe in man-caused global warming..."

Who are they? Please list them.

What scientist haven't done is communicate global warming to the public. The deniers get their info from Limbaugh, Oreilly and the rest of the entertainers.

@To the writer | 8:57 a.m | 10:00 a.m. July 2, 2009

The founder of The Weather Channel John Coleman said, "It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming."

To JMT | 10:10 a.m. July 2, 2009

If you're so sure of your position, then start submitting your research to other climate scientists for critical review.

Real scientists don't fear this, they welcome it. It's how the truth is discovered.

And for the polar bears?

According to a report released just last month by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Polar bear populations in and around Alaska are declining due to continued melting of sea ice and Russian poaching."

The report goes on to state that "Fewer polar bears have survived in the southern Beaufort Sea, which extends from northern Alaska to parts of Canada, and in the Chukchi and Bering Seas between northwestern Alaska and Russia."

Officials say the drop among the Chukchi and Bering bears is likely steeper than for those in the Beaufort, due to a "more dramatic melt of sea ice -- which the bears need to travel and forage for food..."

But again, if you've got a different opinion on the science, then research like a scientist and write like a scientist and report your findings like a scientist.

RedShirt | 10:16 a.m. July 2, 2009

To "To the writer | 8:57 a.m." see my 8:29 a.m. post for a list of 12 scientists that work at Nanjing Normal University in China, University of Minnesota, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and University of Ottawa. Not all of them are climatologists, but then again, I wouldn't expect a climatologist to understand the effects of solar sunspot cycles or cosmic ray fluctuations on the atmosphere of a planet.

Re:To the writer | 10:19 a.m. July 2, 2009

Here are two quit posting!
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can
speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that
man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely
upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface
system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to
receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190
studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.

Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The
global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the
millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” -
Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at
the University of Colorado.

Re: To the writer | 10:32 a.m. July 2, 2009

Here is another one.
Climatologist Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State University, the former head of the
university’s Office of Climatology, has served as a climate consultant to the United
Nations Environment Program, the World Climate Program, the World
Meteorological Organization, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization. Balling, who has also served in the UN IPCC, would have
preferred former Vice President Al Gore had won the presidency in 2000. He has
authored several books on global warming, including The Heated Debate and The
Satanic Gases. Balling expressed skepticism about man-made climate fears in 2007. "In
my lifetime, this global-warming issue might fade away," Balling said in a November 11,
2007 interview with the Arizona Republic newspaper. Noting the pressure he feels as a
skeptical scientist, Balling explained, "Somehow I've been branded this horrible person
who belongs in the depths of hell." He added, "There's just no tolerance right now." The
article explained, “Balling's research over the years has explored sun activity, pollution
from volcanoes, the urban-heat-island effect and errors in past temperature models as
possible causes of rising temperatures.”

RedShirt | 10:35 a.m. July 2, 2009

To "JMT | 9:00 a.m." you forgot to mention that when people talk about all of the dying polar bears the leave out one important fact. The fact is, that in the 1950's there was an estimated 5,000 polar bears in the wild, and now there is an estimated 25,000 polar bears in the wild. So, when you see some of them dying off, it could be because of overpopulation for the habitat or food supply.

Grimble | 11:32 a.m. July 2, 2009

People like RedShirt have been continually referring to NASA and MIT studies blaming global warming on solar activity. The scientists who conducted those studies have gone to great lengths to make clear that their studies have been wildly misconstrued by conservatives. Give NASA and MIT a call and ask them what they think about global warming. It's very disingenuous to mention those institutions so casually, as if they had endorsed your position.

To the commentor at 8:12am: it's rather hilarious that you'd compare global warming scientists to tobacco scientists, because it has been shown time and time again that the global warming deniers use the same strategies, and get paid through similar funding structures, as the scientists who shilled for the tobacco companies. In fact, one of the most prominent deniers, Fred Singer, wrote bogus science for big tobacco before he started shilling for the oil companies.

Anyone can go to sites like Real Climate (sorry, can't link) to find thorough debunkings of the global warming deniers' claims -- especially the internally inconsistent zombie myth of solar activity.

RedShirt | 12:04 p.m. July 2, 2009

To "Grimble | 11:32 a.m." what about all of the other non-NAS and non-MIT studies.

For example, the study "The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate" which links solar activity to climate change, was written by people at Nanjing Normal University, University of Minnesota, Institute of Earth Environment, and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Which says "We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy." Notice the phrase "at least", in other words CRF could be an even bigger driver.

The study "The Geologic Record and Climate Change" was written at Carleton University. Which says "In conclusion, the geologic record clearly shows us that there really is little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature."

Hmm...so far, no NASA or MIT scientists saying it is solar driven.

Now that I have listed actual articles and given you quotes from them, lets see one of these studies that debunk solar activity contributing to global warming.

Sun Activity | 12:23 p.m. July 2, 2009

Of course sun activity has no bearing on the climate of the Earth. For crying out loud, it's 93 million miles away! If the sun had any bearing on earth temperatures, don't you think it would be warmer during daylight hours than at night? Hmmmmmm! It's as silly as thinking the moon's gravity would somehow influence the tides.

Anonymous | 12:27 p.m. July 2, 2009

Yes, the media rejects nonsense. They tend to go with peer reviewed science and scientist who work in the field.

Do you ever vet your sources? I do. Most these anti climate change folks have no background in climate or earth science. They are pay $10,000 a page to write auricles against climate change by Exxon. Exxon is the root of most this junk science that ends up on Fox News or spoken by Limbaugh. Junk begets junk.

Conservatism is a religion. Conservatives go forth to prove what they want to believe. Good, science means having the guts to try to disprove your beliefs.

We have the same people who told willing idiots that Bush would be great for our nation, Iraq had WMD and deregulation would bring prosperity feeding you a lie about climate change.

How many times can people be made chumps and they still return for more? I'm personally, embarrassed for you.

It's like my aunt who keep driving to Wendover thinking you could win. She lost ten thousand trying to win and she could never admit we was being played like a fool.

Re: Grimble | 12:56 p.m. July 2, 2009

I think it's hilarious that you find the comparison between "global warming scientists" and "tobacco scientists" hilarious.

You implicitly assert that scientific findings can be skewed by their sponsoring institutions, and I agree whole-heartedly. Yet you also naively seem to think that such an effect can only occur in one direction.

RedShirt | 1:12 p.m. July 2, 2009

To "Anonymous | 12:27 p.m." In my 8:29 a.m. and 8:41 a.m. postings I listed quite a few articles that either quote published, peer reviewed data, or are the titles of peer reviewed articles clearly stating that CO2 is NOT the primary driver in global warming. The authors have degrees in physics, geology, or other earth sciences.

Once you have reviewed ALL of the articles, not just one or two, come back, and lets discuss what is there.

RedShirt | 1:14 p.m. July 2, 2009

To "Anonymous | 12:27 p.m." I would like to add, if you want to say that your scientist's data is correct, you cannot use anybody that is funded by the government or any environmental group. That way there won't be any bias.

Ghost | 1:39 p.m. July 2, 2009

The debate is no over. More and more scientists are publicly coming out against the anthropogenic global-warming hypothesis. On March 21, 59 additional scientists from NASA, the EPA, the Navy, the Air Force, the Defense and Energy Departments, and major universities joined the previous 650 who disagree with this hypothesis, according to Senator James Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Lionheart | 1:55 p.m. July 2, 2009

The Farmers Almanac predicted a period of global cooling. They have been around and right for a few hundred years. That's my source and I'm stickin' to it.

jfs | 2:50 p.m. July 2, 2009

If you believe in man made global warming then what is wrong with global warming. In a recent tribune article it said regarding Wyoming, "The region's 250-foot-deep Green River Formation preserves a fossil snapshot of the Eocene, the geologic epoch spanning 55 to 34 million years ago when mammal life boomed after dinosaurs disappeared. "While these plants were growing you have the first deer-like animals, the first horses, the first bats," says Aase, ...the 2006 recipient of the Freeman Tilden Award, the National Park Service's highest honor for excellence in interpretation. The atmosphere's carbon load was five to 11 times what it is today and the Earth was substantially warmer" Life didn't disappear, it thrived.

jfs | 3:00 p.m. July 2, 2009

In an article Plant Fossils of West Virginia, Climate and the Carboniferous Period the author states “To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."

So Al Gore thinks he can stop evolution also?

Anonymous | 3:01 p.m. July 2, 2009

If the water levels rise more than 10 feet, Rush Limbaugh will admit global warming is not just some crackpot theory.

jfs | 3:08 p.m. July 2, 2009

Knowwhat | 9:02 a.m. The point comes down to two questions. What is the optimal global temperature for the planet and humanity? Is the current temperature rise within normal variation of historical earth temperatures?

Would any hysteria promoting Global Warming, Cap Trade promoters and defenders please please please answer these two questions. Because if you believe in God then its a mute point, and if you believe in evolution then you haven't got an arguement against global warming taking place or for trying to stop it. And don't anyone dare to say CO2 is a pollutant and we need clean air cause it isn't.

jfs | 3:57 p.m. July 2, 2009

Anonymous | 3:01 p.m, what is the problem with the water levels rising? Lake Powell has risen 30 feet this year. As for the oceans, why would that be a problem? Would there be as much hysteria if they dropped 10 feet? Can you imagine how many people would be displaced and have to move to be closer to the water if they dropped 20 feet. People all over the world would starve because they no longer get access for fish. Coral reefs all over the world would be destroyed, it would be an ecological disaster.

If they rose 50 feet think of the cleaning of the earth that would take place.

The reason humans have survived droughts, ice ages, lived in 120 degree deserts and minus 75 degree artic regions is they adapt. Adaptability takes another bite out of global warming hysteria.

Anonymous | 4:26 p.m. July 2, 2009

Polar ice caps are melting.
Ocean levels are rising.
Flooded coastal cities are in the future.

Ice Cubes to Anony @4:26 | 4:56 p.m. July 2, 2009

Oceans will not rise more than minimally. Most of the ice cap is floating on water. When the ice melts in your glass, it doesn't overflow. Get it? There isn't enough ice sitting on land mass to raise the oceans 20 feet. Get it?

@Anonymous | 4:26 p.m | 5:04 p.m. July 2, 2009

If the Artic ice cap melts it will not add on inch to the ocean levels. Antartica on a whole is not melting. And if global warming is an absolute why then is the federal government rebuilding New Orleans below sea level, which if oceans are rising the exiting levie system could not sustain. Coastal cities being flooded an issue. Since global warming has been going on for the past 10,000 years with or without mans input, and we know in the past ocean levels were higher than they are now. Would the prudent policy be moving populations to higher ground cause its going to happen no matter what we do? Global Warming hysteria lice this previous post are exactly why we are getting a bogus tax on everything we do.

sins | 5:24 p.m. July 2, 2009

I guess we all get to wait and see won't we?

But I am wired to take action when something doesn't look good. It's in my liberal nature.
The paranoid right freezes in these situations and does nothing.

Sins of ommission are far worse than sins of commission.

re: @Anonymous 4:26 p.m. | 5:35 p.m. July 2, 2009

This is by far one of the dumbest-sounding illogical arguments I've heard yet on the subject.
Purely poltically motivated and politics is not what we need at the moment.

Bull | 5:49 p.m. July 2, 2009

If you believe in global warming your insane.
That debate is now over.

@old news | 7:40 p.m. July 2, 2009

Are you talking about the debate over "global cooling" or "global warming?" These smart scientist types really can't decide, over time, which is really ocurring. Maybe if they get more government handouts one way or the other, they will be able to decide.

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.