Deseret News | Reader comments: No climate crisis

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Letters: No climate crisis

mark | 12:56 a.m. July 3, 2009

And why should I listen to Frederick?

I see... | 4:31 a.m. July 3, 2009

Real climate scientists have recently announced that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is higher now than in the past 2.1 million years.

Not to worry, Mr. Anderson's opinions about CO2, which would make a High School science teacher wince, are all we need to know to dismiss all those high-falutin' research journals - according the the AM radio blowhard crowd.

The glory of America is that every know-nothing with a keyboard and internet access has the absolute right to reveal how badly educated they are. Is this a great country, or what?

funny funny stuff, sadly | 5:31 a.m. July 3, 2009

Should we believe the world's climate scientists or Frederick?

It is so nice that the Des News provides an outlet for all the miserable "Obama's going to ruin my life" crowd!

I LOVE MY PRESIDENT AND THIS WILL BE THE HAPPIEST INDEPENDENCE DAY IN 9 YEARS!!!

Comments continue below

Because he listens to Rush! | 6:14 a.m. July 3, 2009

Yes, Frederick, humans only contribute 3 percent of the CO2 into the atmosphere. But it is that 3 percent (and growing amount) that is heating up the planet that is destined to change not only temperatures, but vegetation, our ability to grow foods, and water patterns. Shorter ski seasons and hotter seasons with lower snow pack. All the changes will mean that things that we rely on for human existence and our economy will change, and the fear is that humanity will not be able to adapt without significant cost, war over natural resource shifts, and the like.

@mark | 6:26 a.m. July 3, 2009

Why should we listen to you? The scientific community has been wrong more often than right. That is the nature of science. Keep probing and testing until you figure it out. To gamble on this so heavily is foolish. I am a scientist and know the process.

You may be to young to remember "global cooling". You probably don't know the history of most scientific advances, but there are many dead-ends before the correct path is identified. For a system as complex as our earths warming and cooling phases, I seriously doubt anyone has an accurate and precise model. Please, don't just listen to the television. Read sources from both sides.

Closed Systems | 7:27 a.m. July 3, 2009

Our planet, including the human life on it, is a closed system; meaning that a change in one process affects all other processes. Grossly lacking in most discussions to climate change (wrongly characterized as GW by some)is the increasing decline of evapotranspiration provided by plants. Deforestation - desertification - climate modification. Recent movement of Koeppen classifications in the Arctic do not bode well.

Get real | 7:45 a.m. July 3, 2009

The writer never mentioned liberalism or Obama. All the paranoid liberals need to take a vacation and the Dnews needs to follow it's comment giudelines of not posting comments that are "off topic."

To @mark 6:26 AM | 8:32 a.m. July 3, 2009

"The scientific community has been wrong more often than right."

That's complete baloney. Come on, name science's great failures, especially in the past 100 years. Germ Theory? Genetics? Biology? Relativity? Electronics?

Your life is as good as it is because the scientific community has a track record of being virtually 100% right about things.

"You may be to young to remember "global cooling..."

More complete baloney. The myth of climate scientists predicting global cooling has been debunked on these boards frequently, yet denialists still like to dredge it up. Why is that? Do you really just not learn from mistakes?

"Please, don't just listen to the television. Read sources from both sides."

But do you ever evaluate the quality of information available on "both sides?"

Contrasting the climate research published in peer-reviewed professional climate science journals against the opinions of FOX News pundits attempting to criticize professional research is like contrasting the cosmological research done with the Hubble Space Telescope against the ramblings of medieval astrologers.

Grover | 9:05 a.m. July 3, 2009

Well that about settles the debate for me! Call Steven Chu and tell him to stop reading Al Gore's book! It's all a leftist plot. Brilliant.

@Closed Systems | 10:12 a.m. July 3, 2009

The earth is not a closed system - we get almost all of our energy from the sun. Decrease the amount of energy radiated by the sun and watch global warming (wrongly characterized as climate change by some)go away.

Neighbor | 10:25 a.m. July 3, 2009

When I wonder about the veracity of scientific work, I phone the author and ask him/her about methods or conclusions. Please give this direct method on inquiry a try.

Anonymous | 10:48 a.m. July 3, 2009

The author has no creditability. Nor do the AM radio blowhards he got his information from.

This just in... | 1:49 p.m. July 3, 2009

ScienceDaily (July 2, 2009) – New research, which reconstructs the extent of ice in the sea between Greenland and Svalbard from the 13th century to the present indicates that there has never been so little sea ice as there is now. The research results from the Niels Bohr Institute, among others, are published in the scientific journal, Climate Dynamics.

mark | 3:36 p.m. July 3, 2009

@mark | 6:26 a.m. July 3, 2009, why should you listen to me? I didn't say you should, did I? I didn't try to talk on an issue that I have no understanding of, unlike Frederick.
And you.
For you to bring up global cooling is laughable, while at the same time stating that others need to read and not just watch television. Hey "scientist" how many papers were written about global cooling in peer reviewed journals vs papers written about global warming at the same time? Why don’t you read about it?
Amazing the assumptions you make about me from the statement: "And why should I listen to Frederick?"
I would hope you do not make as many, and as broad of assumptions in your "science."
By the way what is your science? I love it when people come on here and say, "I'm a scientist" Oh yeah? What kind of scientist are you? You got your degree in "polysci"?
To think that a “scientist” would support Frederick’s statement is ridiculous
Simpleton.

To the 7:27 commentator | 6:08 p.m. July 3, 2009

Deforistation and desertification are not related to CO2 increases. If there is a link, trees and all other plants grow better with more CO2.
You are confusing issues. Deforestation has nothing to do with carbon output.
The carbon climate change theories are built around temperatures rising. No other effects are logical results of carbon output. Deforestation and whatever its negative consequences has nothing to do with the current destruction.
If climate change is actually being caused by deforestation, than cap and trade is not the logical anser, and instead planting large amounts of trees and regulating the lumber industry is.

John Pack Lambert | 6:22 p.m. July 3, 2009

Why do people claim that no one ever thought we were in the midst of global cooling? Temperatures fell from the 1940s through the 1970s, even as people were putting out more and more carbon dioxide.
By 1975 people were afraid the lower temperatures would soon cause major food shortages. Read the Newsweek article from April 28, 1975.

@John Pack Lambert | 7:06 p.m. July 3, 2009

Good point. Why aren't we listening to the scientists of the 70's? Can a scientist be wrong and change their opinion on stuff like global warming or global cooling? Of coarse they can! And they will change again to suit their own personal needs and political leanings. lemmings.

mark | 8:44 p.m. July 3, 2009

The reason why, John, is because the majority, by far, of scientist that were publishing papers dealing with climate at that time were, even then, publishing papers on warming not cooling.
No matter what Newsweek was saying.

@mark | 10:56 p.m. July 3, 2009

science is not determined by a majority. If it were then we would be in an ice age right now, because the sentiment of the science community back in the seventies thought the globe was cooling.
Science is and always will be evolving as time goes by. Wait a while and the CRISIS will pass. Too bad the effects of political meddeling in science will have long lasting effects on our ability to provide for our families. In fact, all this global warming hysteria is about destroying the family.

Anonymous | 7:40 a.m. July 4, 2009

Some angry comments by people who don't understand.
Science is most often wrong. The dolts who think its always right have never been involved in scientific research. Keep listening to the media and major scientific institutions that get funded by government. I hope you will apologize for this disaster when the truth becomes apparent in a few years.

mark | 1:40 p.m. July 4, 2009

@mark | 10:56 p.m. July 3, 2009
You know, no it wasn't, like I said go look at what the science was saying, not the media, the papers being published were looking at global warming, no matter what Limbaugh wants you to believe.
You show your incompetence by your statement: "In fact, all this global warming hysteria is about destroying the family."
Anonymous | 7:40 a.m. July 4, 2009
Cute that you think you understand science, no one ever said it was always right. Science does, though, correct itself towards an understanding of the real world, but your statement that it is most often wrong is childish. And you have the gall to call others dolts.
How will you, and people like you, apologize, yes, when you finally see the truth? Our children will never forgive us for what we are leaving them.

Anonymous | 6:42 p.m. July 4, 2009

The planet has had 20 times – 100 times – the amount of carbon dioxide we have now and has handily survived.....When, fred? Explain the methodology you used to determine past CO levels, and relate your findings to life on earth at the time. Thanks.

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.