Reader comments
My view: Global-warming skeptic aims to mislead
115 comments | Read story
Tim | 5:43 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Thanks for the letter. It's always great when real scientists speak up,
and the fact that the writer is local and a meteorologist is a bonus.
James | 6:11 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Far more scientists in the field of study remain either skeptical or conclude
this is an incredible case of bad politics, than agree with Al Gore. Simple as
that.
You have all kinds of petitions, surveys, etc of climatologists and related professionals that state the exact opposite of this letter writer. So to state that the opposite is just more sells pitch of misinformation by the fear mongering crowd.
And of course the fact that Dr Hansen at NASA was caught cooking the books...hmhmm...I mean mistakes were made in data showing that the hotest years did not take place over the past few but in fact back in the first half of the 20th Century. This is the same Dr Hansen who in the early 1970's was promoting the new Ice Age.
And the Governor bought into this.
The Governor can believe what he wants. Where he is getting into trouble is that he is clearly demonstrating his lack of either intelligence or just plain old misrepresentation.
He is Utah's first environmentalist governor. You should have listened to him campaign. Oh the flip and flop this is. The watermelon man. haha
You have all kinds of petitions, surveys, etc of climatologists and related professionals that state the exact opposite of this letter writer. So to state that the opposite is just more sells pitch of misinformation by the fear mongering crowd.
And of course the fact that Dr Hansen at NASA was caught cooking the books...hmhmm...I mean mistakes were made in data showing that the hotest years did not take place over the past few but in fact back in the first half of the 20th Century. This is the same Dr Hansen who in the early 1970's was promoting the new Ice Age.
And the Governor bought into this.
The Governor can believe what he wants. Where he is getting into trouble is that he is clearly demonstrating his lack of either intelligence or just plain old misrepresentation.
He is Utah's first environmentalist governor. You should have listened to him campaign. Oh the flip and flop this is. The watermelon man. haha
Anonymous | 6:29 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Hoorah for Dr. Davies for taking on the quack monsters!
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 6:45 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Things need to change.
But expecting Utahns to admit anything is wrong will never change.
But expecting Utahns to admit anything is wrong will never change.
Larry | 7:06 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
So Scientific conclusions are reached by consensus???
Anonymous | 7:35 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Coal and oil keep you in business if you fly planes. Thing is there is no
absolute fact that climate change is happening and we are causing it to cause
damage.
People use science to give them empowerment and control lives. warm weather is more pleasent than cold weather anyway and humans have no control over the climate. We didn't create this earth we can't destroy it.
People use science to give them empowerment and control lives. warm weather is more pleasent than cold weather anyway and humans have no control over the climate. We didn't create this earth we can't destroy it.
Rod Smith | 8:39 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Well, Mr. Davies, as a physicist, educator, and former meteorologist, could you
please explain to the readers how it is possible to use computer modeling of
chaotic systems as "proof" that man is responsible for global warming?
Also include in your response a detailed explanation as to how the scientific
method allows for data to be selectively filtered in support of a theory.
Your expertise and insight would be greatly appreciated by those of us who are confused by what we perceive as critical deficiencies in the science of global warming. Thank you.
Your expertise and insight would be greatly appreciated by those of us who are confused by what we perceive as critical deficiencies in the science of global warming. Thank you.
Bert | 8:46 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Thank you Dr. Davies.
Jeff | 8:46 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Wow, the author really thinks highly of himself. There are thousands of
scientists who dispute climate change modeling theories. Just like the hockey
stick theory that was proven to be statistically fraudulent, you can't just
toss out the stats that don't fit into your predetermined analysis.
Nathan J | 8:52 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Dr. Davies,
You mention "broad scientific consensus" in your opinion. I learned in my 7th grade life science class of the scientific method. And no where in the scientific method is "consensus" mentioned.
There are many scientists who oppose man-made global warming who are ignored my people like you.
Your article is full of the talking points from environmentalists, like those scientists who oppose man-mad global warming are being funded by big oil or big business. I guess those scientists in favor of man-made global warming get there money for research from purely independent organizations like Hollywood?
Last of all, what is your ultimate proposal? Is more government restrictions and taxes the answer to solve the supposed man-made global warming? Do we need to slow down our economy or even regress our economy to save the planet?
You mention "broad scientific consensus" in your opinion. I learned in my 7th grade life science class of the scientific method. And no where in the scientific method is "consensus" mentioned.
There are many scientists who oppose man-made global warming who are ignored my people like you.
Your article is full of the talking points from environmentalists, like those scientists who oppose man-mad global warming are being funded by big oil or big business. I guess those scientists in favor of man-made global warming get there money for research from purely independent organizations like Hollywood?
Last of all, what is your ultimate proposal? Is more government restrictions and taxes the answer to solve the supposed man-made global warming? Do we need to slow down our economy or even regress our economy to save the planet?
Oh no, | 8:59 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Here come the conservative D-news readers to tell you (a person who actually
studies climate and understands the difference between climate and weather) how
incorrect you are. They know this because republicans told them that global
warming is a hoax.
fr1nk | 9:41 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Thank you Dr. Davies. Disputes in science are expected and encouraged, but
justification is necessary. It is funny that the people on this forum, with no
training, seem to think they are more of an expert than you. Keep speaking up.
Stevan | 9:45 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
RE: anonymous
Climate change has always been happening - where do you think that oil, gas and coal came from? I am glad that you feel more confortable in warm weather; what if that warmer weather reduces snowpack, runoff, reservior levels, food supply? Not so pleasant?
Humans have already affected the climate through the hydrologic cycle (deforestation of rainforests have led to direct increase of deserts in Africa). To ignore or worse, deny, human affect of the earth's climate is arrogant. I will agree with your last statement though - we did not create this earth; but according to most Eastern, Judeo-Christian, and Indigenous native philosophies, we are to be responsible stewards for the next generations. And we might not be able to destroy the planet - we can destroy its' ability to sustain life of all forms.
Climate change has always been happening - where do you think that oil, gas and coal came from? I am glad that you feel more confortable in warm weather; what if that warmer weather reduces snowpack, runoff, reservior levels, food supply? Not so pleasant?
Humans have already affected the climate through the hydrologic cycle (deforestation of rainforests have led to direct increase of deserts in Africa). To ignore or worse, deny, human affect of the earth's climate is arrogant. I will agree with your last statement though - we did not create this earth; but according to most Eastern, Judeo-Christian, and Indigenous native philosophies, we are to be responsible stewards for the next generations. And we might not be able to destroy the planet - we can destroy its' ability to sustain life of all forms.
Need a Snow Forecast | 9:45 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Since Dr. Davies has confidently forecast that the earth will progressively
warmer and anyone who disagrees is an ignorant Philistine, could he please tell
me if there will be a good snowpack in January? I'm trying plan my ski
vacation.
I am also reminded of how last year was forecast to be one of the worst hurricane seasons on record in the US, mostly because of Global Warming.
I find it ironic that scientists who cannot accurately forecast next month's weather or next year's hurricanes are telling me that I MUST impoverish myself because there will be disastrous global warming in 50 years.
I am also reminded of how last year was forecast to be one of the worst hurricane seasons on record in the US, mostly because of Global Warming.
I find it ironic that scientists who cannot accurately forecast next month's weather or next year's hurricanes are telling me that I MUST impoverish myself because there will be disastrous global warming in 50 years.
Derek | 9:48 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Mr. Davies' op-ed piece contains good reasoning. Perhaps he should apply it
to himself. His argument is more than a little hypocritical: he rightly argues
that lawyers should not speak authoritatively about climate issues only to go on
and speak authoritatively about economic ones.
While he shows that we shouldn't let lawyers fly 747's, he also shows that we shouldn't let physicists make economic decisions.
In a state where thousands of jobs are tied to fossil fuels (coal and gasoline) we should not be fooled by the argument that a shift toward renewable energy will be economically rosy, particularly if that move is affected by government mandate which has shown a tendency for getting it wrong on economic issues.
Mr. Davies' assertion that useful scientific debate only occurs in peer-reviewed literature is grossly incorrect. While that may be the only source the mainstream scientific community believes in, history has proven mainstream science incorrect on several important occasions: the Earth being flat, blacks being a sub-standard race to whites, and global cooling come to mind. We should not arrogantly presume that we are above these imperfections of human reason simply because we are living at a later date than our predecessors.
While he shows that we shouldn't let lawyers fly 747's, he also shows that we shouldn't let physicists make economic decisions.
In a state where thousands of jobs are tied to fossil fuels (coal and gasoline) we should not be fooled by the argument that a shift toward renewable energy will be economically rosy, particularly if that move is affected by government mandate which has shown a tendency for getting it wrong on economic issues.
Mr. Davies' assertion that useful scientific debate only occurs in peer-reviewed literature is grossly incorrect. While that may be the only source the mainstream scientific community believes in, history has proven mainstream science incorrect on several important occasions: the Earth being flat, blacks being a sub-standard race to whites, and global cooling come to mind. We should not arrogantly presume that we are above these imperfections of human reason simply because we are living at a later date than our predecessors.
Anonymous | 9:55 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
The folks who believe in global warming would have use use resources wisely and
to become better at conserving. This sounds like the advice my old Mormon
grandmother gave her grand kids. "Waste not, want not!"
Conservatives want you to abandon logic that is so basic to traditional Americanism?
You are a liberal if you sow a button on a shirt or you insulate your home? These are subversive activities. You must be a leftest radial if you buy at farmers markets, garden and can food.
I put money into my truck to save gas. I must be a leftist.
Its funny seeing Rush get Mormons to attack the same ideas their pioneering ancestors once preached.
Conservatives want you to abandon logic that is so basic to traditional Americanism?
You are a liberal if you sow a button on a shirt or you insulate your home? These are subversive activities. You must be a leftest radial if you buy at farmers markets, garden and can food.
I put money into my truck to save gas. I must be a leftist.
Its funny seeing Rush get Mormons to attack the same ideas their pioneering ancestors once preached.
No change needed | 9:55 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
There ain't no global warming problem!
There ain't no water problem!
In fact, there ain't no problem whatsoever!
The good lord will take care of everything.
We don't have to do nuthin'!
This is just another liberal commie conspiracy.
Rush told me so.
There ain't no water problem!
In fact, there ain't no problem whatsoever!
The good lord will take care of everything.
We don't have to do nuthin'!
This is just another liberal commie conspiracy.
Rush told me so.
Elizabeth | 9:58 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
I love it how some readers blame skepticism of man-made global warming on the
Republican party. Whether or not Global Warming is an actual, man-made
phenomenon is a very real debate, and I shouldn't have to feel pressure and
fear of being labeled as this or that simply because certain scientific views
make more sense to me.
Keep the politics out of science and let the facts speak for themselves.
Keep the politics out of science and let the facts speak for themselves.
Ryan | 10:03 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Perhaps Dr. Davies and other "experts" can explain why they were
silent on the many inaccuracies in Al Gore's movie when it came out. If
Davies so is concerned with the integrity of science, he should have spoken out.
Instead, it took skeptics of global warming to expose the problems with
Gore's film.
Did Davies, the "expert," not realize the errors? Did he learn about the problems from the very skeptics he is so critical of? Or does he deny that there are errors in the movie?
Supposedly, the hard evidence for man-made global warming exists somewhere. They seem to be keeping it hidden. Perhaps they think its too complicated for the common folk to understand.
But isn't that what they said about Parker Jensen? The "experts" said Parker would be dead within 3 months without immediate, intense chemotherapy. When Parker's dad looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion, he was villified by the establishment of "experts." They weren't willing to debate the evidence publicly--instead, they relied on the supposed mantle of their Phds and a news media that blinly followed. The Jensens were right. The "experts" were wrong. No apologies though, only "how were we to know?"
Did Davies, the "expert," not realize the errors? Did he learn about the problems from the very skeptics he is so critical of? Or does he deny that there are errors in the movie?
Supposedly, the hard evidence for man-made global warming exists somewhere. They seem to be keeping it hidden. Perhaps they think its too complicated for the common folk to understand.
But isn't that what they said about Parker Jensen? The "experts" said Parker would be dead within 3 months without immediate, intense chemotherapy. When Parker's dad looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion, he was villified by the establishment of "experts." They weren't willing to debate the evidence publicly--instead, they relied on the supposed mantle of their Phds and a news media that blinly followed. The Jensens were right. The "experts" were wrong. No apologies though, only "how were we to know?"
Good Stewards | 10:18 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
There is nothing wrong with being good stewards over the earth. My family
re-cycles where possible, we keep lights off, the heater/air turned down when it
is necessary to use. However, I don't add my mileage every day (which is
limited anyway) to see how many bogus 'carbon credits' I need to buy.
I've conserved because it is right to do. Not because Al Bore told me to.
Ryan | 10:38 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Also, it wasn't all that long ago the "experts" were telling us
the world as we knew it was likely to come crashing down because of Y2K. Anyone
else remember that? Of course, 2000 came and went just fine.
Think about that. They couldn't even figure out how man-made technology was going to react and now they want us to believe their global warming hype.
The fact is, very few scientists are actually brilliant. An Einstein only comes along every so often. The rest are just average people who took science classes and got a degree.
Think about that. They couldn't even figure out how man-made technology was going to react and now they want us to believe their global warming hype.
The fact is, very few scientists are actually brilliant. An Einstein only comes along every so often. The rest are just average people who took science classes and got a degree.
to Snow Forecast | 10:43 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
You are truly ignorant.
First explain how you would impoverish yourself by simply being practical and conserving energy.
You simply don't understand the differenct between climate and weather. Anytime I've heard the naysayers arguments against the possibility that global warming is cause by humans, their statements show how naive they are.
Start by studying the differences between climate and weather, then stop running to AM radio morons to be told what to think about it.
First explain how you would impoverish yourself by simply being practical and conserving energy.
You simply don't understand the differenct between climate and weather. Anytime I've heard the naysayers arguments against the possibility that global warming is cause by humans, their statements show how naive they are.
Start by studying the differences between climate and weather, then stop running to AM radio morons to be told what to think about it.
Hoosier Daddy | 10:57 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
I love it when wingnuts are wingnuts. A bunch of amateur climate change
conspiracy theorists confirming that - given a clear choice - they would rather
spend their energy going in to a tizzy-rant over the godless liberal Al Gore
than to engage in a productive dialogue about how to be better stewards of the
earth for our progeny. Thank god I moved out of Utah and back to the United
States.
Rey | 11:01 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
The global warming (or climate change) train is here. Listened to the
California Lt. Gov. at a meeting last night. He said the Ocean has risen 6
inches, which is going to cause problems with California tidal pools and bays.
Additionally, they are going to have the same amount of moisture, but less
mountain snow, which translates into floods. As a result, California is going
to start putting taxes into solving the floods that will be coming out of the
mountains soon due to climate change and building something to deal with the
rising water on their coastlines.
So the politicians have become weather forecasters. If they are right, they will be heros. If they are wrong, they will take us down a very expensive road that is going to change the social political landscape, which translates into the US becoming a third world banana republic.
So the politicians have become weather forecasters. If they are right, they will be heros. If they are wrong, they will take us down a very expensive road that is going to change the social political landscape, which translates into the US becoming a third world banana republic.
BH | 11:03 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Thank you, Good Stewards!
What is all this effort to discredit the global warming claims, about? Is it an attempt to justify status quo? Who really wants status quo? Who wants to continue to depend on fossil fuels that pollute our beautiful earth? Who really wants more haze in the skyline?
I tend to agree that the evidence for global warming is weak. But we can (and should) still be good stewards of the earth that we live on.
Do it because it is right. Not because some clown who thinks he invented the internet says so.
What is all this effort to discredit the global warming claims, about? Is it an attempt to justify status quo? Who really wants status quo? Who wants to continue to depend on fossil fuels that pollute our beautiful earth? Who really wants more haze in the skyline?
I tend to agree that the evidence for global warming is weak. But we can (and should) still be good stewards of the earth that we live on.
Do it because it is right. Not because some clown who thinks he invented the internet says so.
Thomas | 11:10 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
"to Snow Forecast" -- That's rich. Every time there's a
heat wave, the global warming alarmists declare it a function of climate
change.
It's absolutely true that there's a difference between climate and weather. So your side needs to stop acting as if there isn't.
No credible "climate change skeptic" disputes the "possibility" that global warming is caused by humans. Of course there is a greenhouse effect; otherwise the world would be an ice cube. The $10,000 question is: how powerful is the CO2-based component of greenhouse forcing? Is a change in the tiny percentage of the atmosphere that CO2 comprises enough to send the whole system out of whack? To conclude that yes, it is, the global-warming theorists have to presume massive "feedback" effects, whose actual strength isn't known with anything near confidence.
It's absolutely true that there's a difference between climate and weather. So your side needs to stop acting as if there isn't.
No credible "climate change skeptic" disputes the "possibility" that global warming is caused by humans. Of course there is a greenhouse effect; otherwise the world would be an ice cube. The $10,000 question is: how powerful is the CO2-based component of greenhouse forcing? Is a change in the tiny percentage of the atmosphere that CO2 comprises enough to send the whole system out of whack? To conclude that yes, it is, the global-warming theorists have to presume massive "feedback" effects, whose actual strength isn't known with anything near confidence.
Follow the money | 11:11 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Climate change skeptics claim that there is no global warming,
or there is global warming and we can't do anything about it,
or there is global warming and we can do something about it but it's too expensive.
ALL of the so-called "think tanks" supporting the head-in-the-sand approach to climate change are receiving funds from the oil and gas industry.
Don't believe me? The next time you read an article by a global warming "skeptic" try Googling the author's name. That will lead you to the "think tanks" they're affiliated with. (You'll _never_ see references to their published climatological research in peer-reviewed scholarly journals.) Then start Googling on the think tanks themselves and see who funds them. Nine times out of ten you'll see major funding from Exxon and/or a coal industry association.
The "skeptics" are hoping that if they make enough noise (and rely on a lazy media coverage) about a "debate" about climate change that the public will think there really _is_ a controversy and elect to do nothing.
There is no debate. Significant global climate change is happening, humans are a major part of it, and we have the power to do something about it.
or there is global warming and we can't do anything about it,
or there is global warming and we can do something about it but it's too expensive.
ALL of the so-called "think tanks" supporting the head-in-the-sand approach to climate change are receiving funds from the oil and gas industry.
Don't believe me? The next time you read an article by a global warming "skeptic" try Googling the author's name. That will lead you to the "think tanks" they're affiliated with. (You'll _never_ see references to their published climatological research in peer-reviewed scholarly journals.) Then start Googling on the think tanks themselves and see who funds them. Nine times out of ten you'll see major funding from Exxon and/or a coal industry association.
The "skeptics" are hoping that if they make enough noise (and rely on a lazy media coverage) about a "debate" about climate change that the public will think there really _is_ a controversy and elect to do nothing.
There is no debate. Significant global climate change is happening, humans are a major part of it, and we have the power to do something about it.
Sensible Guy | 11:12 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Interesting that this climatologist did not cite ONE BIT OF DATA. Any guesses
why? The DATA refute the idea of anthropogenic warming, as the NASA report this
week on Arctic ocean circulation demonstrates. He also did not refute any of
the data cited by the previous author (other than to say that one year is not
meaningful--but that argument cuts both ways).
Mark | 11:28 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
@ Ryan: Y2K issues were foreseen and fixed by many intelligent people in the
computer industry. I assisted installing patches on PCs in my industry. Some
would have indeed had problems without these patches. Yes, there was hysteria,
but this was amplified more by the media than by "experts."
Your attack on "experts" shows more of a hatred and distrust of education. It does not provide a rational reason to distrust data concerning GW.
Your attack on "experts" shows more of a hatred and distrust of education. It does not provide a rational reason to distrust data concerning GW.
Enviro-nuts hate America | 11:29 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
All you people that think we have environmental problems are dead wrong!
That water you're drinking is the best there is!
That yellow-ish brown air smells and tastes great!
There is plenty of elbow room to spare for all!
There's not enough snow to ski on yet, but so what?
Smarty-pants liberals are behind this. I just know it. They hate America, they like to hug trees. They don't like to shoot assault rifles, They hate America ... (wait, I already said that...) they hate the troops, they hate ..., they hate ...
That water you're drinking is the best there is!
That yellow-ish brown air smells and tastes great!
There is plenty of elbow room to spare for all!
There's not enough snow to ski on yet, but so what?
Smarty-pants liberals are behind this. I just know it. They hate America, they like to hug trees. They don't like to shoot assault rifles, They hate America ... (wait, I already said that...) they hate the troops, they hate ..., they hate ...
Thomas | 12:06 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
"Enviro-nut" -- You do realize that CO2 doesn't cause
"yellow-ish brown air," right?
Cleaning up "yellow-ish brown air" is doable. (Look at LA in the '70s and '80s.) Eliminating CO2 emissions is a slightly tougher proposition. The costs of such a huge restructuring of civilization could only be justified to avoid an imminent, major danger. It would probably not be justified in response to a speculative, mitigable harm.
Which is why Al Gore so thoroughly exaggerated both the certainty of major anthropogenic global warming, and its potential severity, in his propaganda movie. He went well outside the scientific consensus. Anyone who'd like to try rebutting that last sentence, go ahead. The IPCC report is online.
Cleaning up "yellow-ish brown air" is doable. (Look at LA in the '70s and '80s.) Eliminating CO2 emissions is a slightly tougher proposition. The costs of such a huge restructuring of civilization could only be justified to avoid an imminent, major danger. It would probably not be justified in response to a speculative, mitigable harm.
Which is why Al Gore so thoroughly exaggerated both the certainty of major anthropogenic global warming, and its potential severity, in his propaganda movie. He went well outside the scientific consensus. Anyone who'd like to try rebutting that last sentence, go ahead. The IPCC report is online.
Christopher Cokinos | 12:19 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
To climate-change skeptics, I suggest you do a search with the keywords
"business week climate change cover story," which will give you a link
to a thoughtful story that ran in Business Week in 2004.
To those who engage in insults, I'd like to point out that name-calling is the province of children. Since when is civility something to avoid?
To those who engage in insults, I'd like to point out that name-calling is the province of children. Since when is civility something to avoid?
Tim | 12:24 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Nathan writes: "You mention "broad scientific consensus" in your
opinion. I learned in my 7th grade life science class of the scientific method.
And no where in the scientific method is "consensus"
mentioned."
Rich. Real rich. If your scientific background consists of what you learned in 7th grade, but you're telling me what to think about global warming, you have issues. And if you think the six (or five, or eight) steps of the scientific method define science, you need to go back to school.
Consensus is part of how science is done. If the experts provide evidence, and agree on what that evidence means, and very few or none of them disagree, you have consensus. To disprove that consensus, you need to come up with tons of evidence. And if you, using scientific evidence, disprove something as major as global warming, you're well on your way to a Nobel prize.
To the rest of the posters:
Beware. Your ignorance may be showing.
Rich. Real rich. If your scientific background consists of what you learned in 7th grade, but you're telling me what to think about global warming, you have issues. And if you think the six (or five, or eight) steps of the scientific method define science, you need to go back to school.
Consensus is part of how science is done. If the experts provide evidence, and agree on what that evidence means, and very few or none of them disagree, you have consensus. To disprove that consensus, you need to come up with tons of evidence. And if you, using scientific evidence, disprove something as major as global warming, you're well on your way to a Nobel prize.
To the rest of the posters:
Beware. Your ignorance may be showing.
2-bits | 12:34 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Tim, he's not just a "Meteorologis", He's a pilot turned
atmospheric physicist (whatever that means).
He's obviously objective and knows what he's talking about because he stated that "the bumbling Mr Simmons contradicted the robust conclusions of the entire scientific community" (I usually stop reading when somebody says the debate is over and the whole scientific community agrees with them, but I finished this one).
I'm not an atmospheric physicist, so I'm not going to insist that the debate is over and humans (especially Americans) caused today's weather and my not being able to ski today. But I encourage everyone involved in this forum to learn all we can about Global Warming and anything that threatens the environment and do what you can to improve the situation. I think there's a lot of hype and politics involved in this debate, but that doesn't meen ignoring it will help.
He's obviously objective and knows what he's talking about because he stated that "the bumbling Mr Simmons contradicted the robust conclusions of the entire scientific community" (I usually stop reading when somebody says the debate is over and the whole scientific community agrees with them, but I finished this one).
I'm not an atmospheric physicist, so I'm not going to insist that the debate is over and humans (especially Americans) caused today's weather and my not being able to ski today. But I encourage everyone involved in this forum to learn all we can about Global Warming and anything that threatens the environment and do what you can to improve the situation. I think there's a lot of hype and politics involved in this debate, but that doesn't meen ignoring it will help.
Roger | 12:40 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
There is a Wikipedia article under the title �Scientific
opinion on climate change� which gives a pretty good census
about what various scientific bodies have concluded about global warming. There
is a strong consensus among scientists: Dr. Davies opinions on global warming
are those of the vast majority of scientists who have carefully studied it.
The American Meteorological Society stated, �The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers�the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately�can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.�
It's deperessing how easily public opinion is manipulated.
The American Meteorological Society stated, �The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers�the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately�can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.�
It's deperessing how easily public opinion is manipulated.
Same Old | 1:01 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Same old non-arguments in favor of anthropogenic, CO2-based warming: funding
creates bias, there's a "consensus," we better act now or
we're doomed, the REAL scientists believe in global warming.
Baloney. If funding creates bias, the anti-CO2 crowd is in big trouble. The only "consensus" is that global temperatures have risen, NOT that CO2 is the cause. Taking dramatic action on a weak hypothesis only diverts money, resources, and energy from more immediate issues. Plenty of REAL scientists doubt that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, and are published in peer-review journals. The "rebuttal" letter was pathetic.
Baloney. If funding creates bias, the anti-CO2 crowd is in big trouble. The only "consensus" is that global temperatures have risen, NOT that CO2 is the cause. Taking dramatic action on a weak hypothesis only diverts money, resources, and energy from more immediate issues. Plenty of REAL scientists doubt that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, and are published in peer-review journals. The "rebuttal" letter was pathetic.
Scientific experiment | 1:49 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
To those who think environmental problems are just made up - just step outside
and take a look at that beautiful yellow-brown air you are breathing every day.
Every minute. In - out. In - out.
24 hours a day.
24 hours a day.
Stop questioning your Betters! | 2:16 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Dr. Davie's article does richly illustrate why so many of the Proletariat
are so unwilling to follow the Global Warming Hype.
His opinion is steeped with the disdain for anyone who dares disagree with catastrophic global warming that is so typical in academia and the Media: Global Warming is a fact, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. We see similar opinions the comments.
The problem is, ours is a representative democracy, and if you want something done you need to actually convince a majority of people you're right, instead of screeching "You're stupid, so shut up and do what I say or we'll all DIE!" at them.
Or urging working-class folk to do with less, while living in expensive mansions and emitting tons of carbon jetting around Mother Gaia in an effort to save her. If this "crisis" isn't enough to get Al Gore to change his extravagant lifestyle, then don't expect Joe Six-Pack to be very enthusiastic about changing his modest one.
His opinion is steeped with the disdain for anyone who dares disagree with catastrophic global warming that is so typical in academia and the Media: Global Warming is a fact, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. We see similar opinions the comments.
The problem is, ours is a representative democracy, and if you want something done you need to actually convince a majority of people you're right, instead of screeching "You're stupid, so shut up and do what I say or we'll all DIE!" at them.
Or urging working-class folk to do with less, while living in expensive mansions and emitting tons of carbon jetting around Mother Gaia in an effort to save her. If this "crisis" isn't enough to get Al Gore to change his extravagant lifestyle, then don't expect Joe Six-Pack to be very enthusiastic about changing his modest one.
Gus | 2:55 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Wading into this discussion is much like negotiating a snake-infested swamp.
There are the proponents and opponents, each pushing an agenda and saying that
the other is wrong. However, when the writer says "consensus of
scientists", and it is misinterpreted as saying that science is made by
majority opinion, I must take exception. Consensus means that only a large
majority of scientists agree on the scientific merits of the case.
Scientists may interpret data, but the experiment will be subject to peer review to verify the interpretation. If a consensus of oncology physicians said that you have cancer, you can be pretty certain that you have cancer. They are using the best of their skills to diagnose your health condition, just like scientists look at and come to conclusions from the data that is generated.
Scientists may interpret data, but the experiment will be subject to peer review to verify the interpretation. If a consensus of oncology physicians said that you have cancer, you can be pretty certain that you have cancer. They are using the best of their skills to diagnose your health condition, just like scientists look at and come to conclusions from the data that is generated.
Ryan | 2:58 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Mark wrote: "Y2K issues were foreseen and fixed by many intelligent
people"
Sure, but U.S. "experts" predicted massive problems in foreign countries where those precautions weren't taken. The "experts" were wrong. Would you like to learn more about it?
Mark continues: "Some would have indeed had problems without these patches."
That's right. But if we had known it was only a few minor problems rather than catastrophy, I doubt we would have spent those hundreds of billions of dollars. Point is, the experts didn't know what to expect and their best predictions were wrong. This, while dealing with man-made technology. How about that?
Mark again: "Yes, there was hysteria, but this was amplified more by the media than by "experts."
The government, actually. Under advisement of the "experts."
Mark, bombastically: "Your attack on "experts" shows more of a hatred and distrust of education."
[chuckles] No, didn't do that one. Maybe you are thinking of something you read somewhere else.
Mark concludes: "It does not provide a rational reason to distrust data concerning GW."
Data is not the same as interpretation/opinion. I thought you knew that.
Sure, but U.S. "experts" predicted massive problems in foreign countries where those precautions weren't taken. The "experts" were wrong. Would you like to learn more about it?
Mark continues: "Some would have indeed had problems without these patches."
That's right. But if we had known it was only a few minor problems rather than catastrophy, I doubt we would have spent those hundreds of billions of dollars. Point is, the experts didn't know what to expect and their best predictions were wrong. This, while dealing with man-made technology. How about that?
Mark again: "Yes, there was hysteria, but this was amplified more by the media than by "experts."
The government, actually. Under advisement of the "experts."
Mark, bombastically: "Your attack on "experts" shows more of a hatred and distrust of education."
[chuckles] No, didn't do that one. Maybe you are thinking of something you read somewhere else.
Mark concludes: "It does not provide a rational reason to distrust data concerning GW."
Data is not the same as interpretation/opinion. I thought you knew that.
Gus | 2:58 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
We cannot pick and choose the data that comes from scientific measurements
(whether in the laboratory or in the world), but we must also be cognizant of
errors in both measurement and experimental design. Misuse of data by the
non-scientific community to push an agenda should be questioned. It is easy to
understand why some who are adversely affected by the scientific explanation
would either simply deny or reject the results. Perhaps they believe it is
better to have short-term gain than be concerned about long-term effect.
Finally, there is sufficient reason to doubt some of the �scientists� who speak for the Bush Administration in opposition to the existence of and causes of global warming because they answer to a policy that is in opposition to the scientific evidence. These people are not part of the peer review process. They are more �political� in their focus, and in some documented instances (as testified to by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies director, James Hansen) shown information to be �screened and controlled� on the issue.
Finally, there is sufficient reason to doubt some of the �scientists� who speak for the Bush Administration in opposition to the existence of and causes of global warming because they answer to a policy that is in opposition to the scientific evidence. These people are not part of the peer review process. They are more �political� in their focus, and in some documented instances (as testified to by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies director, James Hansen) shown information to be �screened and controlled� on the issue.
Science Guy | 2:59 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Thank you Dr. Davis. Hopefully you will encourage other well-informed clear
thinkers to speak out on this issue as well as the other big issues of this
age.
The modern media outlets fail to adequately address important issues clearly, intelligently and thoroughly. Incompletely informed citizens with rusty intellectual curiosity and analytical skills have been trained to prematurely marry opinions cleverly and appealingly advertised regardless of truth or fact.
Breaking through, just like many other skills, requires practice, practice, practice. Hopefully more clear thinkers who are well informed will contribute
The modern media outlets fail to adequately address important issues clearly, intelligently and thoroughly. Incompletely informed citizens with rusty intellectual curiosity and analytical skills have been trained to prematurely marry opinions cleverly and appealingly advertised regardless of truth or fact.
Breaking through, just like many other skills, requires practice, practice, practice. Hopefully more clear thinkers who are well informed will contribute
Sorry for the children | 3:04 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
The heads-in-the-sand types who refuse to accept that their environment is
eroding before their eyes
makes me even sorrier for their children and their children's children.
makes me even sorrier for their children and their children's children.
Thomas | 3:34 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Gus -- I admire your dedication to following the science wherever it leads, but
you really should know that James Hansen stands well out of the scientific
mainstream on AGW. He has grossly politicized his office, has misrepresented
data, engages in polemics that make FARMS look like little puppy dogs, and
consistently takes a far more alarmist view than, for example, the IPCC.
Science can indeed be politicized, but only a fool would believe the bias only goes in one direction.
Science can indeed be politicized, but only a fool would believe the bias only goes in one direction.
samhill | 3:47 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Ya'know, if someone wants some great illustrations of why the
"debate" regarding "global warming" has become one of the
best examples of UNscientific dogma run amuck (now eclipsing even the infamous
"cold fusion" debacle), one need merely cite any of the majority of
posts here.
While Dr. Davis may be still a few steps from calling for some kind of Holy Inquisition to “correct” disbelievers of the new “global warming” orthodoxy, I suspect there are a few commentators who are probably ready with the hot tongs and oil they’d love to use to "persuade" the sinners to recant and confess their allegiance to the new order.
It would be hilarious if it weren't so much like other types of mob mentality.
While Dr. Davis may be still a few steps from calling for some kind of Holy Inquisition to “correct” disbelievers of the new “global warming” orthodoxy, I suspect there are a few commentators who are probably ready with the hot tongs and oil they’d love to use to "persuade" the sinners to recant and confess their allegiance to the new order.
It would be hilarious if it weren't so much like other types of mob mentality.
Robert Davies | 3:57 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
On Scientific Consensus (Part I)
Comments about surveys, scientific consensus and legitimate scientific debate, raised by several readers reflect some very common misunderstandings among the public about how science progresses. Consensus in science is not determined through surveys of scientists. Rather, it is determined by the contents of the literature. If one wants to gauge the level of consensus on a particular hypothesis or theory, one searches the literature for measurements and analysis consistent w/ the theory, and those that are inconsistent. In the case of climate change, essentailly all of the peer-reviewed literature, across a broad range of disciplines (including physics, geology, chemistry, oceanography, biology, glaciology, etc.) - as determined by the substantial community of researchers themselves - is consistent w/ the theory of anthropogenic warming. Which is to say that essentially none of the research is inconsistent w/ the theory. So we unquestionably have a strong (near-unanimous, in fact) consensus, as determined by the contents of the literature.
Comments about surveys, scientific consensus and legitimate scientific debate, raised by several readers reflect some very common misunderstandings among the public about how science progresses. Consensus in science is not determined through surveys of scientists. Rather, it is determined by the contents of the literature. If one wants to gauge the level of consensus on a particular hypothesis or theory, one searches the literature for measurements and analysis consistent w/ the theory, and those that are inconsistent. In the case of climate change, essentailly all of the peer-reviewed literature, across a broad range of disciplines (including physics, geology, chemistry, oceanography, biology, glaciology, etc.) - as determined by the substantial community of researchers themselves - is consistent w/ the theory of anthropogenic warming. Which is to say that essentially none of the research is inconsistent w/ the theory. So we unquestionably have a strong (near-unanimous, in fact) consensus, as determined by the contents of the literature.
Robert Davies | 3:57 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
On Consensus (Part 2)
This position has been affirmed by a couple of dozen of this country's most prestigious scientific societies, including: The National Academy of Sciences; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; the American Physical Society; the American Chemical Society; the National Center for Atmospheric Research; the Geological Society of America; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the National Research Council; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association; the American Astronomical Society; and the American Institute of Physics�to name just a few of the more prominent organizations. These societies together comprise many tens of thousands of scientists. From this broad membership, they have drawn on many experts in many fields to examine evidence on warming, cause and consequences, who have then examined the literature and concluded the consensus is broad and deep. The consensus of the literature.
This position has been affirmed by a couple of dozen of this country's most prestigious scientific societies, including: The National Academy of Sciences; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; the American Physical Society; the American Chemical Society; the National Center for Atmospheric Research; the Geological Society of America; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the National Research Council; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association; the American Astronomical Society; and the American Institute of Physics�to name just a few of the more prominent organizations. These societies together comprise many tens of thousands of scientists. From this broad membership, they have drawn on many experts in many fields to examine evidence on warming, cause and consequences, who have then examined the literature and concluded the consensus is broad and deep. The consensus of the literature.
Robert Davies | 3:59 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
On Consensus (Part 3)
Results of surveys, on the other hand, are what they are. But they most certainly don't determine scientific consensus. First of all, good surveys are very difficult to do. For example, one isn't necessarily interested in the opinions of all scientists - just the ones familiar with the actual published results, and with the training to interpret them (I really don't care what the community of podiatrists thinks about the latest cardiac papers). Again, consensus is determined within the literature, not by asking a room full of generic scientists to raise their hands.
Ryan has said that "very few scientists are actually brilliant". I'm not sure how one defines 'brilliant', but I tend to agree nevertheless. Which is precisely why we have confidence in a result when there is broad consensus in the literature. It's not about what any one scientist thinks, but what many thousands of scientists have discovered through measurement.
Results of surveys, on the other hand, are what they are. But they most certainly don't determine scientific consensus. First of all, good surveys are very difficult to do. For example, one isn't necessarily interested in the opinions of all scientists - just the ones familiar with the actual published results, and with the training to interpret them (I really don't care what the community of podiatrists thinks about the latest cardiac papers). Again, consensus is determined within the literature, not by asking a room full of generic scientists to raise their hands.
Ryan has said that "very few scientists are actually brilliant". I'm not sure how one defines 'brilliant', but I tend to agree nevertheless. Which is precisely why we have confidence in a result when there is broad consensus in the literature. It's not about what any one scientist thinks, but what many thousands of scientists have discovered through measurement.
BH | 3:59 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Let me preface by confessing to having doubts about global warming.
That said, what is the real point of the sharp criticism of the global warming platform? Is it just a point to argue? Or are there those of you out there that enjoy all the pollution that has been poured out into our air, our oceans, and our land?
Other than a relatively few captilists that do not want to spend money on cleaning up, doesn't the vast majority agree that we need to do more to take care of our precious earth?
Then, what does it matter if global warming is real or not? Let's stop bickering and get to work on finding ways to conserve natural resources, design practical alternative energy sources, and clean up our millions of tons of daily waste.
If we find out in the end that global warming as not real, so what? Our world will be better. If we fing out global warming was real, then we have made even more of a difference.
Now there is a win-win situation.
But we all need to quit sitting on our buts drinking colas and thinking the environment is someone elses problem.
That said, what is the real point of the sharp criticism of the global warming platform? Is it just a point to argue? Or are there those of you out there that enjoy all the pollution that has been poured out into our air, our oceans, and our land?
Other than a relatively few captilists that do not want to spend money on cleaning up, doesn't the vast majority agree that we need to do more to take care of our precious earth?
Then, what does it matter if global warming is real or not? Let's stop bickering and get to work on finding ways to conserve natural resources, design practical alternative energy sources, and clean up our millions of tons of daily waste.
If we find out in the end that global warming as not real, so what? Our world will be better. If we fing out global warming was real, then we have made even more of a difference.
Now there is a win-win situation.
But we all need to quit sitting on our buts drinking colas and thinking the environment is someone elses problem.
Robert Davies | 3:59 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
On Skepticism
Scientists are, by definition, professional skeptics. But not all disagreement is skepticism. There is a differece between skepticism and contrarianism. Legitimate scientific skepticism aims to clarify, and it does so with observations, quantitative analysis, peer-reviewed and published in the literature.
I certainly to encourage everyone to question what you're told. In my editorial I certainly didn't ask anyone not to be skeptical. But why are so many of you skeptical of the scientific community, and not of a lobbyist with clear financial incentive to dissemble? What I strongly discourage is supplanting amateur, unsupported opinion for professional, heavily supported analysis. I encourage all of you to question the science. But I encourage you, as I did Mr. Simmons, to do it scientifically. If you think you've found an error in the literature, write up your evidence and submit it to a bonafide scientific journal for review and publication. Again, that' s how legitimate scientific debate proceeds.
Scientists are, by definition, professional skeptics. But not all disagreement is skepticism. There is a differece between skepticism and contrarianism. Legitimate scientific skepticism aims to clarify, and it does so with observations, quantitative analysis, peer-reviewed and published in the literature.
I certainly to encourage everyone to question what you're told. In my editorial I certainly didn't ask anyone not to be skeptical. But why are so many of you skeptical of the scientific community, and not of a lobbyist with clear financial incentive to dissemble? What I strongly discourage is supplanting amateur, unsupported opinion for professional, heavily supported analysis. I encourage all of you to question the science. But I encourage you, as I did Mr. Simmons, to do it scientifically. If you think you've found an error in the literature, write up your evidence and submit it to a bonafide scientific journal for review and publication. Again, that' s how legitimate scientific debate proceeds.
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.
- Kelly expects rapid improvement 1:35 a.m.
- Utah Grizzlies fall in California 1:34 a.m.
- Panthers end 4-game losing skid 1:30 a.m.
- Sports briefs 1:29 a.m.
- Arena football back in Utah in April 1:25 a.m.
- Taiwan checking nuke report 12:52 a.m.
- Al-Qaida denies killing civilians 12:46 a.m.
- China finds $1.5 billion in corruption 12:46 a.m.
- Dale has fond memories of Bowl 12:39 a.m.
- Springville comes back against AF 12:37 a.m.
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall
195 - Palin signs books, chats with fans169
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax143
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness138
- Max Hall wants to look ahead130
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
- LDS to emphasize helping needy107
- Revive full food tax?106
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill105
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke95
Can you tell I just got out of a budget meeting with Gov Gary Herbert?
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Royal > Navy
Who do you imagine in your fantasy Jazz viewing that is going to be more...
Innocent???? NO!! Let's start believing our victims here and not...
I dont like the Deseret Duel. its lame like that blonde holding the trophy at...
If I want to dress for success I will wear dark blue. If I want to show that...
I was at BYU when Cleveland came. He really did turn things around. He...
Boozer will be gone before the season ends, after all he continues to...
NBA coaches of good teams would love for Sloan to keep coaching. They know...
this article makes me ashamed i went to byu. how is that a real university?...
Dear Jumbo and Classic. Oh, how negative you are. I can just imagine you as...
Advertisements