Reader comments
Readers' forum: Science is not settled
37 comments | Read story
@Abundance | 4:35 a.m. | 7:04 a.m. July 10, 2009
And, even more so, the science-illterates of the just-prior administration.
Status quo is good? | 7:15 a.m. July 10, 2009
Yes, it is true that science has ultimately crushed the myths of the day -- from
disproving the "earth is flat" or "the earth is the center of the
universe."
However, one cannot refute existing evidence of climate change using the "gut feeling" or previously held beliefs about how the world works. If anything, the science of climate change is refuting the previously held belief that somehow burning carbon-based fuels and increasing carbon into the atmosphere would have NO effect on the climate and broader environment. We know burning fossil fuels spews a host of toxins into the air our children breathe and causes health problems that hamper our quality of life and increases our health costs.
Why keep the status quo? Who benefits from it? Definitely not families with premature illness, death, and financial challenges due to the high price of fossil fuels. Refuting climate change benefits the oil industry -- which 90 percent is owned and controlled by state-owned companies and governments, many of which don't act in America's best interests (e.g., Saudi Arabia, OPEC, Iran, etc.). Actions to combat climate change will change the equation on how we fund these countries in the future!
However, one cannot refute existing evidence of climate change using the "gut feeling" or previously held beliefs about how the world works. If anything, the science of climate change is refuting the previously held belief that somehow burning carbon-based fuels and increasing carbon into the atmosphere would have NO effect on the climate and broader environment. We know burning fossil fuels spews a host of toxins into the air our children breathe and causes health problems that hamper our quality of life and increases our health costs.
Why keep the status quo? Who benefits from it? Definitely not families with premature illness, death, and financial challenges due to the high price of fossil fuels. Refuting climate change benefits the oil industry -- which 90 percent is owned and controlled by state-owned companies and governments, many of which don't act in America's best interests (e.g., Saudi Arabia, OPEC, Iran, etc.). Actions to combat climate change will change the equation on how we fund these countries in the future!
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 7:17 a.m. July 10, 2009
It's too bad here in conservative heaven that we have an almost complete
monopoly on climatologists, and everyone outside is ig'nernt.
finally | 7:26 a.m. July 10, 2009
A letter writer that understands how science works. Too often posters claim
that there is no debate. There is always controversy in science. When someone
tells you that it is settled, you had better grab your wallet before they do.
Please! | 7:36 a.m. July 10, 2009
Watch more Fox Hate network! The uninformed run for god and guns spewing
rhetoric rather than facts. The ignorant are the ones like abundance that follow
what they hear rather than researching facts. Sheep will follow the leader over
the cliff.
Protect oil industry | 7:37 a.m. July 10, 2009
Skeptics of climate change are critical for the continued supremacy of the
global industry and the politcal strength of oil-based countries, such as Iran,
Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. Sending our soldiers and money overseas is good to
facilitate the success of these nations and maybe, just maybe, free market of
oil forces will help these nations become free politically and more friendly to
America!
MJH79 | 7:56 a.m. July 10, 2009
What a bunch of moronic posts! Science is supposed to be about skeptism,
especially when driven by dubious computer models. Those that continually push
the "oil giant" excuse for skeptism, fail to grasp the amount of money
going to "green" industry companies for little or no gain in climate
change. For instance, GE stands to gain billions from the cap and trade
legislation and there are many more. I will gladly change my opinion on climate
change if someone can explain to me the cause and effects of previous warming
and cooling episodes (to include the ice age hysteria of the 70's) and why
we have actually cooled since 1998, despite the fact that CO2 levels have
risen.
"Please" you can continue to watch ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and NBC because they are the type of sheep you seem to choose. You have absolutely zero "facts" to back up your jibberish.
"Please" you can continue to watch ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and NBC because they are the type of sheep you seem to choose. You have absolutely zero "facts" to back up your jibberish.
RedShirt | 8:11 a.m. July 10, 2009
To "Please! | 7:36 a.m." how about we listen to the Geological Society
of America which has an article titled "Celestial driver of Phanerozoic
climate?" In that article, they state "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." So, a
minimum of 2/3 of global warming is cosmic ray fluctuations.
Or, how about we listen to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has the article "The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate" Which says "Cross-correlation of the decadal- to centennial-scale monsoon record with the atmospheric carbon-14 record shows that some, but not all, of the monsoon variability at these frequencies results from changes in solar output."
Hmm....not Fox news, ligitimate sources seem to say that solar fluctuations account for a lot of global warming.
Or, how about we listen to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has the article "The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate" Which says "Cross-correlation of the decadal- to centennial-scale monsoon record with the atmospheric carbon-14 record shows that some, but not all, of the monsoon variability at these frequencies results from changes in solar output."
Hmm....not Fox news, ligitimate sources seem to say that solar fluctuations account for a lot of global warming.
Take these things with grain of | 9:14 a.m. July 10, 2009
This much I do know, at the time of the dinasaurs, it was hotter than now, at
other times in the earths history, (the ice ages) it was cooler. The earth
throughout all history has been changing temperatures.
When I was young in elementary school, we were told that scientists had determined there was only a 20 year supply of oil left.
As I was growing up, I was worried that if the Vietnam war didn't end, that I would be drafted to go to it. I was told that we needed to fight it because if we didn't stop the communists there, dominos would fall and pretty soon the whole world would be communist. - that was one heck of an expensive mistake.
I guess my point is this, I have learned to be skeptical of what the so called "experts" say.
When I was young in elementary school, we were told that scientists had determined there was only a 20 year supply of oil left.
As I was growing up, I was worried that if the Vietnam war didn't end, that I would be drafted to go to it. I was told that we needed to fight it because if we didn't stop the communists there, dominos would fall and pretty soon the whole world would be communist. - that was one heck of an expensive mistake.
I guess my point is this, I have learned to be skeptical of what the so called "experts" say.
Roland Kayser | 9:37 a.m. July 10, 2009
Official Statement of the American Geophysical Union: The Earth's climate
is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate
system-including the temperature of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent
of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of
precipitation, and the lenght of the seasons-are now changing at rates and in
patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased
atmosphereic abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human
activity during the 20th century.
Roland Kayser | 9:43 a.m. July 10, 2009
Official Statement of the American Meteorological Society: "Their is
adequate evidence to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surfaces are
warming, and that humans have significantly contributed to this change."
Grover | 10:04 a.m. July 10, 2009
Great letter for the wrong reason. Science is never settled and that is its
strength not a weakness. In the real world we rarely have "all the
facts" and need to make calls based on what we know now and what the threat
is. Waiting for science to "decide an issue" is only a dodge to put
off making a decision.
Anonymous | 10:31 a.m. July 10, 2009
So, even if the issue is not "settled", does it mean we should not be
better stewards of the environment? I just talked to a guy who saw the Cuyahoga
River burn in 1969, and that mess was cleaned up. We have done good things to
improve our calloused treatement of the planet, but we have so much more to do.
Stop fretting and arguing about the issue and just do it. Or do you love
pollution and causing other harm to the planet? Do you have a personal
investment in pollution?
Jareu | 10:52 a.m. July 10, 2009
A scientist would not claim human caused global warming is a fact any more than
they would claim that evolution is just a theory. However, scientists do claim
that human caused global warming is the most likely explanation for the facts we
observe. How certain are they about the most likely part? they are very
certain. There only seems to be doubt on letter to the editor forums.
@Roland | 11:32 a.m. July 10, 2009
Wonder where those people at the American Meteorological Society will get a job
after they have been found so flat footed wrong. Oh at some other leftist think
tank, I'm sure.
@ Anonymous 10:31: Keeping the environment clean is a necessary and worthy cause. Tranference of wealth to the southern hemishere, putting the US in the dark are not the solution. Our free society and economy brings about this "luxury" of a clean environment. China and India are putting their people and growth first, the old soviet is a rust belt of toxic pollution, activists should go over there and clean up the mess that the communists made.
@ Anonymous 10:31: Keeping the environment clean is a necessary and worthy cause. Tranference of wealth to the southern hemishere, putting the US in the dark are not the solution. Our free society and economy brings about this "luxury" of a clean environment. China and India are putting their people and growth first, the old soviet is a rust belt of toxic pollution, activists should go over there and clean up the mess that the communists made.
BTB | 11:37 a.m. July 10, 2009
Fact: there are tens of thousands of scientists worldwide who disagree with the
conclusions reached by these "official" scientific societies and
organizations.
Fact: observations show that global temperatures and CO2 levels have leveled off during the last decade.
Fact: NASA admits that they don't completely understand how the earth's carbon sinks work. More CO2 is absorbed during some years compared to others.
Fact: NASA admits that atmospheric CO2 has leveled off and the most likely culprit for "future warming" is methane, yet government policies still zero in on CO2 reduction.
Fact: Even if the United States, Russia, and other developed countries reduce their CO2 output, it will all be a wasted effort if China and India continue on their current course, or if we get one big volcanic eruption that spews tons of GHG into the atmosphere.
Still feel comfortable with Cap and Trade?
Fact: observations show that global temperatures and CO2 levels have leveled off during the last decade.
Fact: NASA admits that they don't completely understand how the earth's carbon sinks work. More CO2 is absorbed during some years compared to others.
Fact: NASA admits that atmospheric CO2 has leveled off and the most likely culprit for "future warming" is methane, yet government policies still zero in on CO2 reduction.
Fact: Even if the United States, Russia, and other developed countries reduce their CO2 output, it will all be a wasted effort if China and India continue on their current course, or if we get one big volcanic eruption that spews tons of GHG into the atmosphere.
Still feel comfortable with Cap and Trade?
Anonymous | 11:39 a.m. July 10, 2009
re: Please! | 7:36 a.m. July 10, 2009
Actually, its lemmings that blindly follow another over the cliff.
Actually, its lemmings that blindly follow another over the cliff.
yin & yang | 11:41 a.m. July 10, 2009
re: finally | 7:26 a.m. July 10, 2009
Exactly. Science is fluid, dynamic, & just when you think something is absolute it isn't.
Religion, on the other hand, is the antithesis of science.
Exactly. Science is fluid, dynamic, & just when you think something is absolute it isn't.
Religion, on the other hand, is the antithesis of science.
to Redshirt | 11:46 a.m. July 10, 2009
I continually see your posts that humans are not affecting global warming....
so is it your opinion that all is well, and we should just continue down the
path we are on? That there is no oil problems and we don't need to pursue
alternative enegy sources? that pollution and human action on the planet are
just fine, no change in direction needed?
because that is what you sound like, and that is a most ignorant position....
because that is what you sound like, and that is a most ignorant position....
Anonymous | 11:55 a.m. July 10, 2009
Exxon took a lessen from the tobacco industry that conservatives supported for
years. That have founded conservative think tanks. They pay any scientist with a
body temperature and a degree $10,000 a page for articles contesting climate
change.
These puppets of big energy; Fox News parades as "experts." Conservative liars play on conservative ignorance and fear. One shout; the sky is falling and these chumps run in circles flapping their feather wings, squawking feverishly.
If doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe, you can get a conservative to do anything by playing their cornucopia fears.
This is funny. Most Utahans live where you see the inversion layer hang in more days each year and you don't believe human activities effect our atmosphere. Seeing, isn't believing. Utah's motto: isn't show me, ether.
You have no burn days but, you believe human effects on our atmosphere isn't changing how we live now?
I believe conservatives, in the vastness of their satiable greed, know the climate is changing. Keeping the argument going just affords them more time to get their before they die and dump of future generations.
This worldview gave us a depression.
These puppets of big energy; Fox News parades as "experts." Conservative liars play on conservative ignorance and fear. One shout; the sky is falling and these chumps run in circles flapping their feather wings, squawking feverishly.
If doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe, you can get a conservative to do anything by playing their cornucopia fears.
This is funny. Most Utahans live where you see the inversion layer hang in more days each year and you don't believe human activities effect our atmosphere. Seeing, isn't believing. Utah's motto: isn't show me, ether.
You have no burn days but, you believe human effects on our atmosphere isn't changing how we live now?
I believe conservatives, in the vastness of their satiable greed, know the climate is changing. Keeping the argument going just affords them more time to get their before they die and dump of future generations.
This worldview gave us a depression.
RedShirt | 12:11 p.m. July 10, 2009
To "to Redshirt | 11:46 a.m." there are simple solutions, but they are
not deemed "politically" correct.
First of all, I don't believe in CO2 causing global warming. However, there are ways of cutting pollution and significantly reducing pollution caused by burning gasoline without raising taxes.
If we increase the number of oil permits, and increase the royalty rate for oil, then use that money to fund research into improving batteries, we can make the electric automobile a possibility in our lifetime. Right now it is battery technology that prevents it from becoming a reality. We already have lightweight high torque motors, and can quick charge batteries.
Then, while that is going on, we replace all coal and natural gas burning power plants with Nuclear. The nuclear plants can be air cooled, and only require water to fill their closed loop system once. Additional mining for Uranium should not be needed if we begin to reprocess the spent fuel rods and build next generation power plants that use weapons grade material to produce power.
First of all, I don't believe in CO2 causing global warming. However, there are ways of cutting pollution and significantly reducing pollution caused by burning gasoline without raising taxes.
If we increase the number of oil permits, and increase the royalty rate for oil, then use that money to fund research into improving batteries, we can make the electric automobile a possibility in our lifetime. Right now it is battery technology that prevents it from becoming a reality. We already have lightweight high torque motors, and can quick charge batteries.
Then, while that is going on, we replace all coal and natural gas burning power plants with Nuclear. The nuclear plants can be air cooled, and only require water to fill their closed loop system once. Additional mining for Uranium should not be needed if we begin to reprocess the spent fuel rods and build next generation power plants that use weapons grade material to produce power.
RedShirt | 12:18 p.m. July 10, 2009
To "to Redshirt | 11:46 a.m." here is my plan continued.
In the mean time, with all of the coal and natural gas that is not being used for power production, we produce fuel.
In WWII Germany figured out how to liquify coal and use it for fuel. We also have vehicles now that use natural gas for fuel.
If we want to cut CO2 in the atmosphere, CNN recently published an article titled "'Synthetic tree' claims to catch carbon in the air" which states that "If you give me one of those big windmills which have those big areas through which the rotor moves -- how much CO2 can I avoid? And if I had an equally sized CO2 collector -- how much CO2 can I collect? It turns out the collector is several hundred times better than the windmill."
If you couple that with research by Sandia labs, we can take the excess heat from the nuclear reactors and produce fuel from the CO2 that has been collected.
There you go, a relatively simple solution, with no tax increases and has less environmental impact in the long term than the so called "green" solutions.
In the mean time, with all of the coal and natural gas that is not being used for power production, we produce fuel.
In WWII Germany figured out how to liquify coal and use it for fuel. We also have vehicles now that use natural gas for fuel.
If we want to cut CO2 in the atmosphere, CNN recently published an article titled "'Synthetic tree' claims to catch carbon in the air" which states that "If you give me one of those big windmills which have those big areas through which the rotor moves -- how much CO2 can I avoid? And if I had an equally sized CO2 collector -- how much CO2 can I collect? It turns out the collector is several hundred times better than the windmill."
If you couple that with research by Sandia labs, we can take the excess heat from the nuclear reactors and produce fuel from the CO2 that has been collected.
There you go, a relatively simple solution, with no tax increases and has less environmental impact in the long term than the so called "green" solutions.
RedShirt | 12:20 p.m. July 10, 2009
To "Anonymous | 11:55 a.m." how is Exxon funding anit-man-made Climate
Change any different than government funded man-made Climate change?
The government is funding it to justify massive tax (or fee) increases.
Oil companies fund research to prove their products are safe, and governments fund the research to justify taxes. So, which one is correct?
The government is funding it to justify massive tax (or fee) increases.
Oil companies fund research to prove their products are safe, and governments fund the research to justify taxes. So, which one is correct?
wallofvoodoo | 12:25 p.m. July 10, 2009
Who cares if it is a fact or not. There is so many variables out there that we
may never knkow. Why not eliminate or limit one variable from the mix? Do we
really want to experiment with the earth. I don't.
the only ones bringing up | 12:44 p.m. July 10, 2009
the claim that the science is settled are the Fox Channel conservatives.
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists that believe the data points to anthropogenic climate change, don't believe the science is settled. But they have enough data to base a strong hypothesis upon, and which we, the not-climate-scientists, would be wise to heed.
Dragging your heels on climate change, unfortunately, is akin to dragging your knuckles as well.
Turn off the TV and do some reading and thinking.
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists that believe the data points to anthropogenic climate change, don't believe the science is settled. But they have enough data to base a strong hypothesis upon, and which we, the not-climate-scientists, would be wise to heed.
Dragging your heels on climate change, unfortunately, is akin to dragging your knuckles as well.
Turn off the TV and do some reading and thinking.
Gus Talwynd | 12:44 p.m. July 10, 2009
The question is not that global warming exists. There can be both global
warming and global cooling existing separately during different periods of time.
Neither is the should there be an argument about if we should call it global
warming/global cooling or climate change. They are the same thing.
The issue is not whether natural changes in the environment or human activity is responsible for climate change. It can be shown scientifically that both factors contribute to global climate change. This question is to what level human activity contributes to the overall effect of global climate change and is it increasing in its effect.
It is disingenuous to believe that human activity has absolutely no effect. It's like saying that human activity does not contribute to air pollution or any other adverse effect on our environment.
People living in a home create waste which has to be handled unless they want to live with it. We deal with the waste because of its adverse effect on our lives. And just like the waste generated in our homes, keeping the waste in our greater environment has an effect regardless of our beliefs.
The issue is not whether natural changes in the environment or human activity is responsible for climate change. It can be shown scientifically that both factors contribute to global climate change. This question is to what level human activity contributes to the overall effect of global climate change and is it increasing in its effect.
It is disingenuous to believe that human activity has absolutely no effect. It's like saying that human activity does not contribute to air pollution or any other adverse effect on our environment.
People living in a home create waste which has to be handled unless they want to live with it. We deal with the waste because of its adverse effect on our lives. And just like the waste generated in our homes, keeping the waste in our greater environment has an effect regardless of our beliefs.
BTB | 12:45 p.m. July 10, 2009
Response to "anonymous" and others: My point is that scientific
integrity has been compromised. Many are comfortable with "the end
justifies the means" in this case. I'm actually a big believer in
conservation, reducing pollution, and developing alternate forms of energy
generation. I recycle, I live in an average sized house, I drive a 4-cylinder
car, and I use about 4% of the energy that Al Gore uses. I own wilderness
property that contains thousands of trees and plants, so my "net carbon
output" is negative. How's yours?
Science will NEVER be "settled" | 1:05 p.m. July 10, 2009
Science will NEVER be "settled". We will ALWAYS have something new or
different to learn.
The day science is settled and their is nothing new to learn... we humans will have no more purpose on this earth.
The day science is settled and their is nothing new to learn... we humans will have no more purpose on this earth.
@Anonymous 11:55 | 1:05 p.m. July 10, 2009
Common sense: Everyone knew that tobacco was bad for you. All the scientists
in the world paid by the tobacco industry couldn't make a dent in the
common sense knowledge and observation that tobacco was bad for you. It is the
same with global warming change, common sense prevails, the GW activists can
force tax increases through a corrupt government, to effect the true aims of
redistributing wealth and power away from the US, but no one with "common
sense" believes that mankind has the capablity of altering the global
climate.
to redshirt | 3:08 p.m. July 10, 2009
I didn't ask you for a plan. My point is you don't think we are
affecting the planet. That's pure ignorance. In fact, that makes you part
of the problem.
no matter what we do, we are all waiting for you to at least admit that humans are destroying the planet. And yet you persist in denying it. That's just stubborn republican craziness - and it's why no one trusts your kind. You can't even admit we are doing harm.
no matter what we do, we are all waiting for you to at least admit that humans are destroying the planet. And yet you persist in denying it. That's just stubborn republican craziness - and it's why no one trusts your kind. You can't even admit we are doing harm.
Anonymous | 3:22 p.m. July 10, 2009
TO - @Anonymous 11:55 | 1:05 p.m
["no one with "common sense" believes that mankind has the capablity of altering the global climate."]
so was that a mistype, or are you purposely sounding stupid? Of course 6.8 billion people can affect the climate. Any other position is simple ignorance.
["no one with "common sense" believes that mankind has the capablity of altering the global climate."]
so was that a mistype, or are you purposely sounding stupid? Of course 6.8 billion people can affect the climate. Any other position is simple ignorance.
Ron | 3:25 p.m. July 10, 2009
Sing it libs:
Unilateral diarmament, abortion on demand
take all of the guns away and toss them in the sand
Free needles for the addict,
free condoms for the kids
We don't blame the criminal
for anything he did
For who can say what's right or wrong
Or if there's such a thing as sin?
And does it really matter
If wars, we lose or win
Unilateral diarmament, abortion on demand
take all of the guns away and toss them in the sand
Free needles for the addict,
free condoms for the kids
We don't blame the criminal
for anything he did
For who can say what's right or wrong
Or if there's such a thing as sin?
And does it really matter
If wars, we lose or win
To "to redshirt | 3:08 p.m. " | 3:44 p.m. July 10, 2009
to redshirt | 3:08 p.m.
Where did redshirt say he didn't have any affect on the planet?
I went back and read his postings and didn't see that.
Puting words that were never said into someones mouth (or saying they "think" something they never said) just so you can make your argument is a bogus tactic.
Both sides know we have an affect on the planet. That doesn't mean as YOU put it, "humans are destroying the planet". There is a difference between having an "affect" and "Destroying" the planet. There is still a chance that humans are NOT destroying the planet. I think we have done a lot to improve the planet. I know we have done some bad things too, but you can't totally disregard the positive impact humans have on the planet and just assert that just by being human we are guilty of destroying the planet. That makes you sound like a wacko!
We ALL need to do our best to conserve and preserve, but we DON'T need to be as radical as YOU are and live in a constant guilt-trip about our impact on the planet.
Where did redshirt say he didn't have any affect on the planet?
I went back and read his postings and didn't see that.
Puting words that were never said into someones mouth (or saying they "think" something they never said) just so you can make your argument is a bogus tactic.
Both sides know we have an affect on the planet. That doesn't mean as YOU put it, "humans are destroying the planet". There is a difference between having an "affect" and "Destroying" the planet. There is still a chance that humans are NOT destroying the planet. I think we have done a lot to improve the planet. I know we have done some bad things too, but you can't totally disregard the positive impact humans have on the planet and just assert that just by being human we are guilty of destroying the planet. That makes you sound like a wacko!
We ALL need to do our best to conserve and preserve, but we DON'T need to be as radical as YOU are and live in a constant guilt-trip about our impact on the planet.
Anonymous | 6:13 p.m. July 10, 2009
re - To "to redshirt | 3:08 p.m. " | 3:44 p.m
["We ALL need to do our best to conserve and preserve, but we DON'T need to be as radical as YOU are and live in a constant guilt-trip about our impact on the planet"]
if you don't think we are making the planet worse, and that eventually we will make it uninhabitable, you are just another loony in denial. And we all know we can't destroy the planet - it will be here for millions more years. The question is - will we be here?
["We ALL need to do our best to conserve and preserve, but we DON'T need to be as radical as YOU are and live in a constant guilt-trip about our impact on the planet"]
if you don't think we are making the planet worse, and that eventually we will make it uninhabitable, you are just another loony in denial. And we all know we can't destroy the planet - it will be here for millions more years. The question is - will we be here?
Re "Anonymous | 6:13 p.m." | 9:01 p.m. July 10, 2009
Anonymous | 6:13 p.m.
If YOU believe it is inevitable that the planet will soon be uninhabitable... YOU are a wacko.
Of course we CAN make the planet worse. But that doesn't mean you can just ASSUME everyone is working to destroy the planet (just because they don't agree with you, or aren't as radical as you).
It's NOT inevitable that we will eventually make the planet uninhabitable. THAT is a radical defeatist point of view.
And EVERYTHING we humans do isn't harmful to the planet. Some examples...
-The air is cleaner today than it was 100 years ago (when everybody was using coal, wood and oil for all factories, homes, etc). Back then people write of having to change their white shirt mid-day because they would be so blackened by soot.
-Many waterways are cleaner today than they were just 40 years ago. Hudson river for one.
-Some forests are more healthy today with management plans than they were 80 years ago.
Humans making the planet uninhabitable is NOT a given. If YOU actually believe that humans ruining the planet is inevitable, unpreventable, and just an eventuality... YOU are loony.
If YOU believe it is inevitable that the planet will soon be uninhabitable... YOU are a wacko.
Of course we CAN make the planet worse. But that doesn't mean you can just ASSUME everyone is working to destroy the planet (just because they don't agree with you, or aren't as radical as you).
It's NOT inevitable that we will eventually make the planet uninhabitable. THAT is a radical defeatist point of view.
And EVERYTHING we humans do isn't harmful to the planet. Some examples...
-The air is cleaner today than it was 100 years ago (when everybody was using coal, wood and oil for all factories, homes, etc). Back then people write of having to change their white shirt mid-day because they would be so blackened by soot.
-Many waterways are cleaner today than they were just 40 years ago. Hudson river for one.
-Some forests are more healthy today with management plans than they were 80 years ago.
Humans making the planet uninhabitable is NOT a given. If YOU actually believe that humans ruining the planet is inevitable, unpreventable, and just an eventuality... YOU are loony.
mark | 1:50 a.m. July 11, 2009
"There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has
gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in
globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the
period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world’s warmest year
in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was
equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998.
A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious."-Dr Robert Fawcett and Dr David Jones are from the National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology.
You guys really have to stop listening to Limbaugh.
A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious."-Dr Robert Fawcett and Dr David Jones are from the National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology.
You guys really have to stop listening to Limbaugh.
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.
- RSL will play for MLS Cup tonight 3:06 a.m.
- Jazz outlast Pistons in overtime 3:06 a.m.
- Utah Utes whip SDSU 3:05 a.m.
- BYU records with win 3:05 a.m.
- RSL dancing with soccer stars 3:04 a.m.
- Cougars turn focus to dreaded rivals 3:04 a.m.
- Dixie State campus briefs 3:03 a.m.
- Weber State campus briefs 3:02 a.m.
- UVU campus briefs 3:01 a.m.
- BYU campus briefs 2:59 a.m.
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?
- Can BYU throw vs. Air Force?
- Cougars cruise to victory in Hawaii
- Huntsman blasts media over trip
- Police link alcohol to murder
- Christian leaders not backing down
- BYU records with win
- TCU still has a chance
- Orem man acquitted in tot's death
- Religion cited in deportation fight
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
192 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah173
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?129
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified122
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case103
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.100
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio98
- BYU records with win95
- Utes knock off rival Aggies93
- Huntsman pleased with Obama87
I don't pretend to be an expert on global warming. I've met with...
Latest comments
Beck is extremely smart, he is selling books and is very popular on TV. All...
@Mick, the Federal Govt is run by corporations through contributions and...
Lets bond together and hope for a REAL celebration SUnday night, can hardly...
I was on the playground too and some teachers came out and called us all to...
B.Y.U. has been a consistent a top 25 ranked winner under Max Hall. Hall has...
Did Timp win four in a row or 4 in 4 years?
You have a lot of growing up to do, It seems like you have not cxperienced...
The proposed ethics law puts roughly the same burden on a legislator that a...
Hall ACTUALLY broke the all timme wins record vs WYO last week. I guess...
Sounds to me like Kraig Powell may be a candidate for resignation. So long,...
Advertisements
I think this quote sums it all up, from the President right down to the liberals and mad scientists.