I hope the lunacy reflected in this letter is not widespread in Utah.

Williams is an economist--not a scientist--and he's very partisan. Enough said. Trouble is, the folks making the "it's not caused by humans" argument have to get around that 99.9% of the world's scientists believe that global warming is caused by humans. Williams would have us believe that the scientists are all duped.

I agree, Global warming is a Myth!!!

I have heard that through out history, the earths temperature has changed constantly. When I was in elementary school they told us about the ice age and told us we were headed for another one.

Will global warming, or the carbon dioxide we are putting out now, prevent another ice age? If so, why don't we count this carbon dioxide as a blessing?

Although I am sure that Kelly B. Jarvis of Heber City has spent years studying the subject, collecting data, and his/her letter is not the result of years of watching faux news but I am more inclined to believe the scientists, thanks anyway.

That's it...bring up Hitler! That'll win the argument!
I'm constantly amazed at how many people turn into twelve-year olds at the mere mention of global warming.

Hitler in this arguement is no more a prevarication than saying "99.9% of scientist agree." Both are falacious. Granted, using computor modules and interpolated projections, a case can be made for both change and the conclusion that man has an impact, but it is nonetheless disingenuous to claim the extreme position taken by GW alarmists that change is permanent and that man is the single biggest contributor. Jumping on the current popular bandwagon does not always mean your headed for the concert. Anyone taking time to look for more than only that which supports their predetermined position can find scientific evidence supporting both sides of the argument, and that makes the issue arguable in fact. That man needs to better to safeguard the planet is a given, but the extreme position taken by the GW freedom fighters is not.

99.9% believe in Global Warming? Thus begins the weakness of your arguement.

Can you site a source for that?

On the other side I can site a survery of climate related scientists done by AP in which more than 60% say there is not a conclusive link between man and GW. The project from the University of Oregon in which around 20,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that GW is not manmade. You then have the Leipzig letter in which around 100 of the leading climate related scientists in the world say with their signature that the political correctness driving this manmade GW theory should slow down and rely on real science.

FACT: 99.9% of scientists do not say what you claim. For starters, what is a "scientist"? Take the Oregon project, they each have PhD's but are not climatologists. Have you defined "scientist"?

As for the comparison to Hitler, possibly over the top. If I had to guess he is citing the extreme political correctness and fadishness created in which people dare not speak the truth: Murdering Jews is not the answer.

The whole Al Gore thing is the most political correct thing I have ever seen.

Mr. Jarvis fails to mention his credentials. So he has an opinion - big deal! Opinions are like armpits; everybody has 'em and they all stink. Support your opinions with facts!

May be an economist, but, like the rest of us, he can read, and his opinions need be confined to economics. Further, if you knee jerk recters would think first and write after, you'd realize that an economist might have a clue as to the prime motivation behind creating an extreme global warming agenda, money and distribution of wealth. There are huge dollars, euros, pesp bhats etc riding on the ability to not only sway public perception, but allocate international resources. Scientist and economist alike have a stake in this play for the global "warming" economy.

Can we please have a moratorium on the global warming commentary? The true believers are still using data circa 1997 while the more level headed types have moved on as it has become apparent that the earth is not warming at nearly the rate predicted by the messiah Al Gore.
Don't worry alarmists - McCain is a true believer also so either way the election goes you'll get your carbon taxes and "cap and trade" scams. The taxpayers will have more weight on their backs and Al Gore will laugh all the way to the bank as he makes another fortune with the help of his fellow travelers

Anonymous 6:18
And the Global Warming activist are not partisian?

Pleassssse....

Which is more likely?

1) Every major professional science organization in the world has been duped into publishing thousands of fraudulent and/or erroneous research papers pointing to serious man-made climate change, or

2) "Think tanks" funded by fossil fuel industries publish non-scientific but highly provocative articles casting doubt on global warming. The media, scientifically illiterate, lazy and credulous but terrified of not being viewed as "fair and balanced" dutifully report that there is a "controversy," giving politicians an excuse to do nothing to inconvenience their campaign contributors from the fossil fuel industry. It's a proven strategy that worked beautifully for the tobacco industry.

My money's on scenario #2.

Excellent letter Kelly!

Listen people...

Two scenarios:
1- Human-caused global warming is false.
2- Human-caused global warming is a reality.

Reactions?
Reaction 1 for scenario 1: Global warming is false and we do nothing. The undeniable pollution from fossil fuels continues (harmful air in SLC, anyone?), and quality of life either remains the same or decreases.
Reaction 2: Global warming is false and we act anyway. Pollution decreases, we have a cleaner planet and would presumably be less dependent on foreign energy sources. Quality of life increases.

Reaction 1 for scenario 2: Global warming is real and we do nothing. Worse-case scenario, perhaps catastrophic. Pollution increases and worse, large percentages of populations either migrate or perish. Quality of life certainly decreases.
Reaction 2: Global warming is real and we do something. We perhaps avoid catastrophe. The planet is cleaner. Quality of life increases.

To me, these are the only 4 scenarios I can envision, and the only bad results come from inaction. I don't like the doomsday crowd, the hysterics. That being said, if we take steps to curtail global warming, whether it's real or not, it seems the outcome is always positive, whereas the alternative is potentially devestating. Yes?

Two words for this controversy. Sun Spots. Good ole King Sol is going to make this all a moot subject.

Fortunately Utah is literally the last place on earth where this debate is taking place. Some of you will undoubtedly say this is because Utah is the last "enlightened" place on earth, but the truth is quite the opposite.

Fortunately in the rest of the world smarter heads have prevailed and we are making real progress on this problem.

I went into my cave to avoid the world meltdown caused by the Y2K bug - thought I was safe to come out now - but I guess I need to go back into my bunker to avoid the next global crisis. If anyone is still alive in 20 years - come get me - I will be in my basment praying to my alter of Al Gore (which I made out of paper mache from recycled issues of the New York Times.)

I want Orrin (Clout)Hatch to spearhead an annual Utah scientific symposium of "It's just a fad" folks. We seem to be the headquarters of this movement, so let's hear the best and the brightest "non believers" take on the rest of the world scientific community. We took a great leap forward with Cold Fusion controversy and Orrin's Women's Conferences have brought women from slavery almost to the promised land. It is time for a new direction and a chance to once and for all to prove the rest of the world are fadists!

Hey Anonymous,

Are you aware that the earth's temperature has not risen since 1998?

Are you aware that last winter, it dropped .71 degreesF.

Didn't think so. These are facts, they are not the writings of the editorial board.

Because of the wacko enviros fools, food prices are getting close to doubling since idiots think we need to put our food supply into our gas tanks or we will all fry in five years, and the cost of a gallon of gas is rising faster than that, because of all the restrictions, and the knee jerk reaction to people who drive cars.

Global warming? You better get your snow shovel in good condition, check on that furnace, and be sure your bicycle has snow tires on it. You are gonna need it for the next handful of years.

Global warming? The biggest scam ever foisted upon the people of the world.

According to a pro-GW British newspaper, the global temperature has not risen since 1998. In fact, it dropped slightly in 2007.

Are we just in the calm before the Al Gore storm (as the newspaper suggests) or is it almost midnight for the global warming cinderellas?

Has the world heeded Al Gore's message and thus man in his infinite wisdom has avoided a great environmental disaster unlike any seen before or was it just blown so far out of proportion by the politicos (the real leaders of the movement)

I truly don't know.

It causes me concern when the leader of a scientific movement is a politician. (I don't trust many of those.)

I am also sceptical when the 'evidence' I read (which I do a lot) seems to contradict itself over and over again. Each side discounting anything that does not agree with its findings.

I did read that sunspot activity has reduced recently, if that has anything to do with global temperature as some scientists claim, we are in for a cooling trend.

Weathermen cannot predict with accuracy more than three days in advance, so I surely cannot predict what comes next.

Stay Tuned.

utterly stupid letter Kelly!

To the human caused Global Warming believers, I have two questions.

1. If global warming is human caused why is it that NASA (NOT FUNDED BY OIL COMPANIES) has data showing the same warming on Mars AND that the oceans have NOT increased in temperature as predicted by global warming?

2. If global warming is caused by humans why is it that a lot of the base line data being used is from the late 1970's and early 1980's, when we were going through a global cold period? (One example is measuring the arctic ice began in the late 1970's)

I would appreciate real answers, backed by actual information.

Common Sense makes sense!
I don't know exactly who has the truth, but I think that it will not hurt me and maybe help the earth if I act like global warming is a fact...so I do what I can. I can't understand why people don't do the same, just in case. Is it really going to change your life that much to take a few steps to recycle, walk where you can, garden, etc? Why are people fighting it?

I wholeheartedly agree with Common Sense...I don't see why doing something to curb our pollutant emissions is a bad thing, regardless of whether or not global warming is real.

The use of fossil fuels is, sooner or later, a futile exercise. They exist in limited quantities and emit harmful pollutants when burned...there is no debating that fact. So our air quality suffers as we consume a limited resource with no viable alternatives currently in sight...

We need to start doing something about our energy policies. Perhaps now that oil is getting so expensive market forces will help, but most alternative sources are also very expensive, so there's no magic solution there.

If we do nothing our air quality (and subsequent quality of life) will continue to suffer - not to mention the economic consequences when oil really does become scarce. But if we do something now - a well-planned, step-by-step, collaborate effort - we can clean up our air, abolish our dependency on oil, and do so with little or no negative economic impact.

But if we all keep acting like children, pointing fingers and calling names? Who knows how bad things will have to get before we act...

YBU, the reason people are fighting it is because the GW advocates are trying to push for government and economic policies be based on the 'fact' that gobal warming is man-made.

That 'fact' is still in question and so governments should be careful in their affairs.

I don't think anyone is fighting sound conservation measures like you mentioned. I don't think that they should be forced upon us by governments, however.

I would be more concerned about global warming if it weren't true that the earth for all of its history has constantly changed it temperature, from warm to cold and from cold to warm. When I was a child in school they told us about the ice age and that the earth was going to go into another ice age.

If the carbon dioxide we are putting out now, prevents another ice age, isn't this a good thing?

Let me say that CO2 is not a pollutant. Reverting our country and the world back to the 1800's will NOT add a drop to a swimming pool to change the way the climate will go.

re: Big Al

I'm afraid you're wrong. People ARE fighting "sound conservation measures." Some examples: how can it be a bad thing to increase mpg in vehicles? Yet the auto industry fights it. How can it be a bad thing to decrease levels of harmful factory emissions? Yet new standards are years away from being implemented (the same for the new mpg standards, by the way), and in some cases loopholes have been created to get around regulated emission levels. Add to this our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocal, which was done for financial reasons, according to the Bush administration. We have sacrificed health for economic gain.

We consume finite resources as if they are infinite. Gas prices rise, and we cry for help. Not help to get away from oil, but to lower the price. Who do we ask for help? The government. But I forgot, Big Al, you don't want the government to get involved.

History has shown time and time again (with some exceptions, obviously) that industry will not take the first step in conservation, because it costs them profits. In a matter as important as our well-being, I'm afraid government must be involved.

As John McCain expressed in a recent appearance before a college crowd: (I paraphrase) We need to take action to correct the problems which are the cause of global warming where we can if it is true. We should take the same steps to make a better world for our children and grandchildren if it is not true.

The only opposition against the whole idea of human activity contributing to global climate change is the cost of remediation. Those industries which contribute to the increase in carbon dioxide emissions don't want to see any effect on their bottom line profit. It's like a polluter who dumps toxic waste into the water supply, better they be able to continue without having to address the problem so they can stay in business and continue making money.

Taking the steps to reduce these atmospheric pollutants which contribute to global climate change should be just the cost of doing business. Consumers should support these issues as it provides for an increased quality of life.

Does anybody know what our friends, the conservatives, are trying to conserve?

hold on, Do I want increased MPG at the expense of safety? To make cars more fuel efficient they must be lighter. When you make smaller, lighter cars you make cars that are less safe. Would you rather be in the Yugo or the Suburban if you have an accident?

Government mandating smaller lighter cars takes away my freedom to choose safety of cost of fuel.

The next car I intend on buying is a hybrid SUV, not because of globel warming but because of the cost of fuel. Which is the better motivator?

Get real about Kyoto. It was aimed to economically restrict the USA. China and India both emit more 'greenhouse gases' than does the USA but were exempt from Kyoto. Why? If it were really about the environment why restict number three and let number one and two go unrestricted. It is about bringing the only super power down to size.

You say that the government must get involved. Just remember that most things run by the government are slow and inefficient, except their ability to take money from the masses. The first thing that they get involved in if we let them is your wallet.

My next door neighbor is a dean at George Mason University where Walt Williams teaches. He says Williams is weird and wacky. I believe my neighbor.

YouGoFirst, you state "If global warming is human caused why is it that NASA (NOT FUNDED BY OIL COMPANIES)..." and imply that anything coming out of NASA should be believed.

Apparently, you missed the new when articles said "The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists."

Yup, NASA can be trusted only in so far as the data matches the Bush administration censors. Perhaps this is why the data you mentioned was published from NASA, and not the data supporting man mand climate change.

Danish Broadcasting Company (DR1) journalist, Øjvind Hesselager (2). In late 1997 he attempted to contact every signatory (82 at the time) to the "Leipzig Declaration." Of 33 European signatories:

* there were four he was unable to locate

* twelve denied having signed, and of these, some had not even heard of the "Leipzig Declaration"

* many signatories were not qualified in fields even remotely related to climate research. They included medical doctors, e.g., H. Metzner; nuclear scientists, e.g., M.J. Higatsberger; and one expert on flying insects, i.e., V. Svidersky

* some signatories had financial ties to the German coal industry or the Government of Kuwait

LIFE, LIBERTY, PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, or in one word FREEDOM.

Everyone that believes in the false religion of global warming should be allowed to feel guilt. They can pay huge taxes and huge prices for everything. I have no problem with that. Every item should have to prices, thinking and non-thinking. Then we shall see by the taxes collected how many really believe in this false religion. Please don't violate our first amendment rights by forcing us to be part of your state sponsored religion.

To "GWB | 11:44 a.m", you still have not answered my question. The statement "NOT FUNDED BY OIL COMPANIES" was added because of an earlier post where somebody said that the anti-global warming studies were funded by oil companies.

Again, you didn't answer the question about warming on mars, or the lack of warming in the oceans.

The global warming crowd needs to admit there is significant uncertainty in predicting future climate, in the underlying assertion that CO2 can drive climate, and in the assertion that we can do anything about it.

The anti-global warming crowd needs to admit there is some valid scientific basis to this hypothesis (it's not a theory).

There is currently no meaningful public dialog on the science of global warming, and that hurts all sides. Quit shouting, start discussing!

Gore/Kerry/Kennedy/Edwards are politicians --- not scientists---- and very partisan.

Enough said!

Believing in global warming is ok. The data is there that shows that the Earth's temperature has increased. What is in question is what is the cause. Is global warming man made or is it a natural cycle that self corrects.

Re: Status quo 11:54 -

So you think torture, illegal wars, wire-tapping, out-of-control inflation and the bankrupting of this country and financing it all with YOUR tax-dollars is your idea of happiness, liberty and freedom?

No thanks.

I'm voting for change in November.

Big Al, you completely contradict yourself. You say that for vehicles to get better mileage they have to be smaller and lighter. And then you say your next car will be a hybrid SUV, because it won't cost as much, because it has better mpg. In what way is a hybrid SUV "smaller and lighter"? The days of smaller/lighter are potentially past. Many lines now have hybrid options. Don't exaggerate and say that I have to choose between a Yugo and a Suburban. That's not realistic. Hey, maybe I'll drive a hybrid SUV.

And then you support another of my points. We withdrew from Kyoto because it was potentially economically damaging. But there is no denying that it would have improved emission standards and lowered pollution. So, the Bush administration chose economics/profits over health/pollution concerns. That's what I said. And you agreed, but made it somehow seem like you were disagreeing. The administration made a choice.

And as I said, private industry has been too slow to embrace environmental concerns. Government should be involved when something as important as our planet's future is involved. And tax breaks and incentives don't cost us anything. They do it now. Stop being paranoid...

I, for one, get very weary from all the bogus ultra-nationalism we are hearing today.
These far-right types are confusing partisan party politics with the usual "it's all about patriotism" crap.
And when one disagrees with their POV that person becomes a "bad American."

I see McCain is already using that tire, worn-out GOP gimmick already. But America at large is not buying it.

Thank God!

I'd expect more from you. If you disagree with Williams ideas or logic, fine, but what makes your neighbor more or less an expert an Walt Willimams other than the fact you know him. Certainly your neighbor is an expert on wierd. After all you know him. His neighbors thught Jeffrey Dahmer was just a quiet peaceable neighbor. Who knew?

In 2006 The PBS program “Nova” featured a pair of volcanoes in Africa by the town of Goma. The United Nations was monitoring the volcanoes because of the risk to the residents of Goma. While the scientists were in one of the craters monitoring CO2 and other volcanic gases, one of the French scientists made the statement that the one volcano they were measuring discharged more CO2 in a day than the entire United States does in one year. Think about that comment for a minute. It would take the United States 365 years of venting CO2 into the atmosphere to equal one year of the Goma volcano. And then add to that all the volcanoes currently active throughout the world and the amount of CO2 vented by man is, apparently, of little consequence. As a side note on Nature’s contribution to this subject, it was also recently published that trees and bushes are responsible for 30% of methane gas vented into the atmosphere. If all this is correct, then it is more reasonable to believe that nature is responsible for climate change and man is only in the very early stages of beginning to understand climate change.

Simply put (IMO), global warming is a total hoax.

That it is touted by Al Gore is enough proof for me. His theory is 99.9% crazy.

The point was that economics fuels my decision to buy a hybrid, so I don't have to spend as much for gasoline. It is not the paranoia (your word) about global warming. Do you think that the government should mandate that all cars be hybrid? Do you think that the government should mandate how much electricity one can use in their residence?

Where do you draw the line on government intervention? When do you say enough is enough?

I would like to decide how my money is spent. You can spend it going 'green' if you want, but it isn't for the government to decide for you or me. That's all I'm saying.

green on the outside red on the inside

Whenever neocons believe in something strongly enough, it magically becomes true. Then when they're challenged on piddling details like "logic" and "evidence," they say, "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! I thought you liberals were supposed to have open minds!"

Perhaps we are, but an "open mind" doesn't require us to believe every magical neocon fairy tale made up by scary old men with hidden agendas. Logic and evidence still matter, no matter how long or how hard neocons holler that they don't.