U.S. & World

Conservative scientists take on climate change deniers

Scientists include BYU professor Barry Bickmore


Return To Article
  • David Folland SANDY, UT
    Aug. 8, 2011 8:57 a.m.

    Thanks for setting the record straight, Professor Bickmore. While climate science and weather are very complex, the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists are pretty straight forward and understandable to someone without preconceived conclusions. I continue to be amazed at the lengths people go to to try to justify their scientifically unsubstantiated ideas.

  • mtseatss Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 10, 2011 6:41 p.m.

    "Where ARE the numbers to back the rhetoric?" Where's the irrefutable and indisputable science to back man made climate change? Silly,radical person.

  • radically_independent Orem, Utah
    Jan. 10, 2011 7:33 a.m.

    "Never mind that the policy costs several times that of your mortgage" - cute, but where is the numbers to back the rhetoric?

  • mtseatss Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 10, 2011 6:03 a.m.

    "You won't buy property insurance unless I can prove to you that your house will catch on fire right now."

    Never mind that the policy costs several times that of your mortgage and these "so called" scientists are not those buying the policy but peddling it . . .

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 10, 2011 12:14 a.m.

    Back on the 70's climate scientists said we were headed for another ice age, now they say the opposite. Is it the CO2 that prevented the ice age? , if so, isn't this good? If not then it appears climate scientists aren't good predictors.

  • Jimmy James Bronx, NY
    Jan. 9, 2011 11:43 p.m.

    "Scientists benefit from publishing, not specifically from publishing for or against climate change. As such, the "bias" is just as likely in favor as against any particular hypothesis or "politically motivated" position."

    Hmmm, that's a pretty good argument. Although, I would counter it with this:

    Imagine two different scenarios in which all climatologists were finding the exact same thing.

    In scenario 1, all climatologists are stating

    "all is well"

    and in scenario 2, all climatologist are stating


    Now Imagine that you're the NIH. Government funding is way down and you have to chose among several different fields of science who gets the money. In which scenario do you think the climatologists get more funding? It's an easy answer, #2 does. It doesn't mean that the scientists in scenario 2 are wrong, but, you must admit it represents a potential bias.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 9, 2011 11:38 p.m.

    Why do we think that a colder climate is best and that warming is therefore a bad thing? I for one would like it if it gets warmer. Better for crops too the CO2 and warm weather.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Jan. 9, 2011 11:48 a.m.

    Jimmy James,

    Yes, publishing is in the best interest of scientists. But that argument itself does not favor or work against climate change science - a scientist is just as likely to engage in "junk science" in favor of climate change as against it, given the "pressures" of publishing.

    Unfortunately, your comment seems to at least suggest that there may be an inherent bias in favor of research supporting climate change simply because "scientists benefit" from it. But scientists benefit from publishing, not specifically from publishing for or against climate change. As such, the "bias" is just as likely in favor as against any particular hypothesis or "politically motivated" position.

    In short, the fact that scientists "are just people" should neither give us reason to doubt nor to accept what any given scientist reports.

    By contrast, business interests such as large oil conglomerates, are not likely to benefit from the idea that human societies threaten climate change. I think that was the point of the previous commenter, and it remains valid.

  • Jimmy James Bronx, NY
    Jan. 8, 2011 11:42 p.m.

    "A Scientist":

    I did not intend to suggest that scientists are getting rich off of grants or their publications.

    However, you identified in your comment exactly what I was talking about: "Publish or Perish". If you don't publish, the NIH isn't going to fund you. I personally know 2 scientists at public universities that failed to "publish" and subsequently "perished". Scientists are great people and most do science purely because they love science and would never intentionally mislead another person. But, you also have to admit that a scientist benefits tremendously when they find something important. Hence, a potential for bias in scientists wanting to interpret their findings as important.

    This type of bias exists everywhere.

    If you take your care to a mechanic, even if everything is fine, they're still likely to find something to fix (because they benefit).

    If you ask a surgeon about a medical problem, they're far more likely to recommend surgery as the fix than another doctor would (because they benefit).

    My point is that scientists and the government are just people, and people tend to act in their own best interest. To ignore that is naive.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Jan. 8, 2011 5:50 p.m.

    Jimmy James,

    Most of the scientists studying climate change are on the faculty of publically funded universities. Sure, some of them get government or private grants to support their research, but that money typically goes for equipment, facilities, technology, research assistants, etc. Scientists do NOT get rich off of such grants. They also have to publish (or perish) regardless of what funding they do or do not get, so they don't make money off their publications, either.

    Your argument is specious.

  • Jimmy James Bronx, NY
    Jan. 7, 2011 10:58 p.m.

    Twin Lights:

    As could be gleaned from my previous post, I have no problem with accepting global warming, but I can't help but point out you have a pretty poor argument going.

    I'll tell you who benefits from global warming the most:


    Scientific funding is way down lately, and unless you can show that your research has significance it's not likely to get funded. So it is rather convenient for these scientists to have now found that their work is suddenly "critical" and should receive tons and tons of money to further study and solve the problem.

    Additionally, the government is not so different from a corporate entity either. Part of why the government has grown so much lately regardless of which political party controls the government is because:

    As a government official, if there's not a government intervention to be made, you don't have a job.

    Global warming is definitely also in the governments best interest too.

    My bet is still that global warming is probably real, however, that doesn't mean you shouldn't reserve some cautious doubts about it too.

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    Jan. 7, 2011 5:09 p.m.

    When is global warming going to start effecting our winters? I can't wait!

  • Michael De Groote
    Jan. 7, 2011 4:45 p.m.

    test 2

  • Michael De Groote Salt Lake city, UT
    Jan. 7, 2011 4:40 p.m.


  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 7, 2011 2:27 p.m.

    I just love the line that we don't want to leave debt for our kids because that my friend is wrong....

    ... but to the environment, well we aren't going to let no tree hugging liberals tell us what we can do to the planet - it is ours and we'll do with it what we want. We have no responsibility to leave this place as nice as it was for us, for our kids.

    I still haven't gotten my mind wrapped around how you can care so much about your kids taxes, but their air, water, and general environment... nah... not so much.

  • Charles History Tooele, UT
    Jan. 7, 2011 1:41 p.m.

    Re: "charlie91342" 12:30

    You give the conservatives too much credit, they care for themselves. They do not care for their children or the earth in general. They believe someway somehow things just will work out.
    Conservatives are about the now!

    Look at Bush, when asked about "How will history view you" his reply "History does not matter because when it is written we will all be dead". This point is why they fight against the Global Climate Change - what does it matter when it happens we will all be dead.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Jan. 7, 2011 12:30 p.m.

    wow. I am totally amused by these posts. here is one of your religious conservative scientists saying global warming is real and man made, and yet the deniers just continue to say it is not real...

    the point of the article is that deniers will prevent anything from being fixed. and based on the posts, it looks like that is exactly what will happen.

    it's mostly funny because you people have more kids than anyone else on the planet, yet you have no problem leaving them a dying planet. i would have thought you'd be smarter and care more than that...

  • Not So Fast Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2011 8:06 a.m.

    I don't expect any of my scientists to be "conservative" or "liberal" and I suspect the credible ones wouldn't think of themselves like that either. Scientists should work off data, not political ideals. I must say (as a "conservative" or perhaps "moderate") in general, I think this nation's conservatives have made science political and then blamed others for doing it.

    I don't want my science based on anything other than data.

  • ego Laie, HI
    Jan. 6, 2011 7:31 p.m.

    @ Ralph and all of the other diddo heads.....

    Glenn Beck and Rush are "waaaaaaay smarter"

    yes yes, their years of arduous study and controlled investigations have assisted them in being experts in . . . . entertainment.

    Rush dropped out of Southeast Missouri state and
    Glenn graduated from .....Sehome High School...

    They are both entertainers that profit from fear mongering. They are both professional propagandists.

    If the "liberal scientists" are right then...
    If they are wrong then....

    Which of the two is scarier?

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Jan. 6, 2011 5:23 p.m.

    "How would these huge monied interests likely be aligned? Would they want to acknowledge global warming which would then impact their businesses and profits?"

    Ah, but this is far trickier than most people think. The dirty little secret about big business is that they welcome government regulation. They are the ones who write it. They write it in a way that presents disadvantages to their competitors. If Ford knows that it can build a car next year that gets 50 mpg, but GM can't, do you think Ford will support or oppose a law requiring cars to get 50 mpg? What more reason do corn farmers need to believe in and perpetuate the global warming hype than their potential profits from ethanol?

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Jan. 6, 2011 5:16 p.m.

    "Politicians should stay out of scientific debate. Most don't have degrees or training on science."

    Fair enough, but maybe scientists should stay out of political debate. Most don't have degrees or training on politics.

  • Vanka Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2011 2:59 p.m.

    Twin Lights,

    Will you please run for public office!

    Thank you for sound reasoning and an excellent comment.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 6, 2011 10:43 a.m.

    The science is often ignored because people think that the data has been gamed by big money interests.

    Where in the global warming argument is the biggest money to be found?

    Fortunes Global 500 lists the worlds largest corporations. 5 of the top 10 are oil companies. 8 of the top 20 are oil companies. 2 more are car companies and one is a power company.

    How would these huge monied interests likely be aligned? Would they want to acknowledge global warming which would then impact their businesses and profits? Or, would they align against global warming so that they could continue their current business practices?

    Its not a tough analysis.

    Similar things happened decades ago with tobacco companies. Despite ever mounting evidence, the tobacco companies paid for research to discredit both the scientists and the science that showed any linkage between cancer and smoking.

    Eventually, the evidence came out. But not before many were harmed by the delays and confusion created by the tobacco company shills. We cannot afford the same here.

    We only get one planet and there is no viable alternative for mankind if we mess this one up.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    Jan. 6, 2011 8:25 a.m.

    OK. Now that most of you have had your say and the furor has abated, I'm throwing in my 2 cents.

    There is little argument that the climate is changing. It has never been static. 10000 years ago, central Illinois was covered by hundreds of feet of ice. Thanks goodness the earth has warmed considerably! It helps my property value.

    There have been warm ups and cool downs over the past couple millenia, of note the Vikings established colonies in Greenland around 1000 AD which thrived for 200 years -- until things cooled down again.

    Is man's contribution to current weather patterns significant is an unanswered question from all I have read on this subject. Can we really significantly alter current weather patterns? This too appears unanswered. Does this mean we shouldn't try? Of course not. But I think the real effort needs to be at a personal -- not national -- level. The real contributors to the problem are individuals and unless we willingly change our lifestyle there seems little point in pursuing the matter.

  • radically_independent Orem, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:46 p.m.

    Eco-Ween - interesting catch. I will have to some more reading to do. Thanks. I would like to understand what is being promised and how.

  • Jimmy James Bronx, NY
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:38 p.m.

    As a very conservative person myself who also happens to be near the field of science:

    Excellent article Deseret News. Thank you for sharing it.

  • Eco-Weenie Dayton, OH
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:11 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil | 5:17 p.m.

    "This is NOT about sending cap and trade dollars to other countries. Those are lies being promoted by those who are motivated by politics, not facts."

    It most certainly is about sending money to other countries. This is from a 12/17/09 NY Times article:

    "COPENHAGEN -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has promised the United States will help raise $100 billion annually by 2020 to assist poor countries in coping with climate change as long as America's demands for a global warming pledge are met."

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:07 p.m.

    In the 1970's and '80's it was all about global cooling. Everyone was afraid we were entering an ice age.

    Do you know what affects the weather more than anything else? Volcanoes going off. How many are spewing ash? Look it up. When Pinatubo was going in the early 90's, no one in Idaho could grow tomatoes.

  • Did I Say That? Rawlins, WY
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:03 p.m.

    Sooo, who can explain the climate change that has taken place before man was on the scene?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 8:14 p.m.

    "People blow off global warming because the science just isn't strong enough"

    Its pretty strong when you actually look at the data and do research on the issue rather than getting your views from some right wing radio host who tells you in April that Arctic sea ice extent is near the average but neglects to point out that April set a record low April Arctic sea ice volume. (this would be Glenn Beck)

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 8:10 p.m.

    "Co2 makes up only 0.037% of the overall atmosphere. This is a good reason to be skeptical."

    skeptical... that you're a climate scientist. If you were a climate scientist you would know that just because a gas has a low concentration, does not mean that it's effect is minor by any stretch.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 7:49 p.m.

    Politicians should stay out of scientific debate. Most don't have degrees or training on science. I don't think Beck, Limbaugh, or Beck have any credentials to speak on the subject. When someone with a PhD in a field like Physics or Botany etc speaks out on a scientific issue they at least deserve to be heard. I find at amusing that Conservatives complain about the hysteria from the left when they do exactly the same thing on issues like immigration. You can show them hard scientific data that prove they are wrong and they just ignore it and continue to spew the same ridiculous rhetoric. Doug Wright for President. Love his common sense approach to issues.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 7:45 p.m.

    Anytime a headline includes such loaded language as the obviously slanted term "denier", all the attempts by the reporter to speak in terms "scientific" are completely discredited.

    I think it's great that there are people with REAL scientific reasoning for their convictions, whether they be that mankind is significantly contributing to "climate change" (it looks like the previously favored term of "global warming" has been successfully converted to the more abstract and one-size-fits-all term) or that there is still more to be learned before reaching that conclusion.

    BUT, I remain disgusted by the hoards of wannabe scientists who, like this reporter, can't manage to stop tripping over their own prejudicial political baggage in order to let some objective data actually take hold.

    What this whole supposed debate has done to true objectivity in scientific research is deplorable.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 5, 2011 5:17 p.m.

    JSF - the quote you used so far taken out of context that it isn't even funny. They were speaking to the fact the the emerging economies are being asked to cut back gas release as much as established economies - a price they feel isn't fare since they are so far behind.

    For example, the climate change crowd wants a slow down of the deforestation of places like the Amazon, and the conversion of these lands to agriculture. These 3rd world countries argue that much of the "developed" world has already deforested their lands, and therefor has little to loose by making this request. The third world countries see this as being unreasonable.

    So this redistribution of wealth being debated is allowing 3rd world countries an exemption to the rules so that they can catch up and become more self sufficient.

    This is NOT about sending cap and trade dollars to other countries. Those are lies being promoted by those who are motivated by politics, not facts.

    Germany has figured out how to enact these policies and yet have the strongest economy per capita today. The US is just as smart and can do likewise.

  • Question Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 4:47 p.m.

    Amazing... this debate is STILL useless after all these years.

    I thought after Obama took office and many on the right changed their stand... we could make some actual progress. But I see it's still in the idealogical prosliting stage. The stage where if ANYBODY disagrees it's not good enough, and we have to throw all the old assumptions about the doubters around again and again.

    Give in to the consensus... Resistance is futile... you will be assimilated!

    What more can we do? Hardly anybody denies climate actually changes anymore? We just don't know EXACTLY why... or how much of it is man's fault... or how man can repent for his sins and fix it. Scientists are FAR from agreement on exactly what causes it and if/how we can fix it.

    Do we all have to agree that Global Government is the only solution to that problem as well?

    That's probably a bigger debate.

  • J1234 Spanish Fork, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2011 4:13 p.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic

    So why do liberals like the Obamas, Pelosi, and Al Gore fly so much?


  • MVH Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 4:06 p.m.

    Hey Deseret News, what's next? an article called "Faithful Mormon Elder Takes on First Presidency Over Doctrinal Issues"? Calling this guy conservative is just plain deceptive. He may be a Republican, but he is no conservative if he voted Obama and believes in the global warming hoax. There is a fundamental difference between party and philosophy. Republican does not necessarily equal conservative.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 3:55 p.m.

    Happy Valley Heretic. Your right we do have history going back millions of years. "Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."

    So it appears that with all the carbon we are putting in the atmosphere we still are not at the norm for the earth.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 3:31 p.m.

    We live on a planet that is awfully old. We have weather data for 150 years on a planet that is millions of years old.

    We have weather data going back millions of years because of gas bubbles trapped in Ice cores takin' from Antarctica, Greenland and all over the world.
    and microscopic fossils in the sea floor. Like ring in a tree it's quite accurate
    and interesting. Look up how 911 let scientist measure how much sunlight is blocked just from contrails because of the no fly rule for a couple days.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 3:18 p.m.

    'One of the reasons he left his birthplace village in Kenya was because he...' - Corn Dog | 2:23 p.m.


    So we should believe this conservative scientist...

    because Obama was 'born in Kenya.'

    Why not just blame illegal immigration?

    ' For the United States, that would be a 96% reduction, to levels not seen since the Civil War.' - Same

    So, you admit, it is possible.

    'My guess is the planet's climate cycles. (sic) Call me a conservative who believes in moderate environmentalism.' - USAlover | 3:04 p.m.

    No, you said your 'guessing' about the enviorment.

    I wouldn't call that 'moderate' Lover.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 3:04 p.m.

    We live on a planet that is awfully old. We have weather data for 150 years on a planet that is millions of years old.

    My guess is the planet's climate cycles. I'm for cleaner air for another reasons.

    Call me a conservative who believes in moderate environmentalism. I'd rather not by gas because terrorists profit from it, not because it's melting glaciers.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 3:03 p.m.

    Corn Dog | 2:23 p.m That is exactly what the concensus of the international global warming control freaks of Cancun want. A 90% reduction of carbon emmissions in the U.S. by 2050.

  • Resident2 Spanish Fork, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2011 2:59 p.m.

    I would recommend a book called "Green Hell" by Steve Milloy. While I am skeptical that global warming is man made, I do agree that things should be done to correct the issue of our air cleanliness.

    That said, if you read this book, you'll see, with plenty of references, that the high ranking politicians that are pushing for government to take over the issue have a personal agenda.

    A government take over of the problem is NOT what is best for this country. I don't know why anybody thinks that the government will just flip a switch and do things efficiently and correctly.

  • cynic Appleton, WI
    Jan. 5, 2011 2:41 p.m.

    So, the Deseret News publishes an article quoting some scientists who believe climate change claims should be evaluated based on science and fact, not on political ideology. Seems reasonable to me that scientific issues would be better resolved by scientists than politicians.

    Then I read the comments to the article, and nearly every one of them focuses on one of these points:
    1. These scientists aren't true conservatives, so we can't trust their scientific conclusions.
    2. Conservatives own the true science, and liberals are only motivated by politics.
    3. Liberals own the true science, and conservatives are only motivated by politics.
    4. We don't trust any scientists, because they are all motivated by politics.

    Sounds to me like the entire point of the article has been completely overlooked.

    Welcome to 1984, where the Party controls the mind, and truth is only what the Party tells you it is. Orwell would be so proud.

  • Corn Dog New York, NY
    Jan. 5, 2011 2:23 p.m.

    Let's cut to the chase.

    The same scientists who expound on anthropogenic global warming also tell us that to solve the problem the entire world must drastically reduce it's per capita CO2 emissions to those of the average villager in Kenya. For the United States, that would be a 96% reduction, to levels not seen since the Civil War. China, India, and the rest of the developing world aren't buying that, they are continuing to modernize with essentially a full fossil-fuel economies.

    Even Obama won't go along with that. One of the reasons he left his birthplace village in Kenya was because he couldn't stand the primitive lifestyle.

  • ComSen1 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 2:13 p.m.

    From TIME Magazine, June 24, 1974

    "Another Ice Age?

    In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

    As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades."

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 2:09 p.m.

    In an article "Climate and the Carboniferous Period" the author lists the following facts. "Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm." "To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."

    These are just little tidbits the man made global warming activists don't bring up. History just doesnt support the man made global warming theory.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:59 p.m.

    For the folks claiming here that "mankind can't adversely affect the weather" -- look out the window today... Polluted inversions are man-made weather phenomena that Utah now endures every winter.

    Scientific evidence trumps ideology every time.

  • El Tigre American Fork, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:54 p.m.

    Hey Dnews,
    Why the headline calling climate skeptics names? Isn't this just more rhetoric? How about an article with facts? Exactly how much has the percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide changed in the last 50 - 100 years? How much carbon dioxide have we added to the environment? How much has the global temperature changed? Are there other theories for the change in global temperature?

    Or, we can just keep calling each other names and spouting more rhetoric.

  • MormonDem Provo, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:48 p.m.

    Psst: if 93% of experts in a field believe something, it's no longer a "conspiracy." It's mainstream science. The remaining 7% are the extremists.

    And on these message boards, the commenters can't just disagree with (let alone consider) these scientists' views: they restort to personal demonization of this guy.

    The GOP's pandering to the anti-science know-nothings will be a huge factor in the party's long-term downfall. How high can you keep saying, as the evidence against you piles up, "C'mon America: Who you gonna believe? Me, or your own lyin' eyes?"

    Also, judging from the commenters here who dismiss this scientist's Republicanism because he voted for Obama: it seems to me that the new litmus test for Republicans is whether or not you believe in litmus tests for Republicans.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:43 p.m.

    The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer in a recent interview with Germanys NZZ Online, lays out just what the climate talks are all about:

    "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy. ...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore....

    Climate change politics is about corruption in world governments. "Cap and Trade" is corruption at its foundation.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:40 p.m.

    'The article does not say "vindicated" in its body, it says "largely vindicated" (sic) I stand by my original statements. - Jaime Lee Bonberger | 12:14 p.m.

    Acutally, here is what I quoted.

    *'"Climategate" Leak Report Vindicates Scientists' - CBS News - 07/07/10

    'Independent Finding Shows No Evidence Of Wrongdoing After Examination of Climate Researchers' E-Mails'

    Here is another:

    'British climate change scientists cleared of dishonesty' - The independant - 07/10/10

    'The Independent Climate Change Email Review found nothing in the hacked emails to undermine the conclusions of the United Nations' climate change panel, which won a Nobel peace prize for its 2007 study on global warming.'

    You are free to have your opinion. I cannot stop you.

    But I will ask: 1) Why specifically those findings were wrong. 2) for Examples 3) For dates and 4) for names.

    If you cannot provide these, it is your opinion of wrong doing.

    Not because wrong doing was done.

    srw | 1:17 p.m. got it pretty good.

    How did you arrive at that conclusion?

    As for 'man being unable to effect his enviorment'...

    *'Red air quality alert issued' - AP - Published by DSNews - 01/05/11

  • DeepintheHeart Lewisville, TX
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:39 p.m.

    You can be conservative and you can be a scientist, but we don't have a category for conservative scientist. That's sort of a problem. All science should be skeptical. It is based on observation and experimentation. Conservative principles have nothing to do with it. I'm waiting for someone to show me in clear, concise language why CO2 is causing a problem when the same spikes in temperature have occurred over time without the same levels of man-made gases being present. The science is not settled (sorry, Al).

  • srw Riverton, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:32 p.m.

    Gr8bald1 makes some correct statements, but then writes
    "The bigger question should be, "Is the greenhouse gas increase the SOLE reason for temperature change? And is man the SOLE cause of it" "

    Yes, we should strive for a complete understanding of all the contributing factors. But even if man is not the sole cause of it he might still wreck the planet.

  • srw Riverton, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:17 p.m.

    newsy wrote
    "Mankind cannot possibly generate enough pollution to even begin to dent the ozone or cause climate change and global warming."

    How did you arrive at that conclusion? Is it something that I should "just know"?

  • srw Riverton, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:13 p.m.

    Diligent Dave wrote
    "Are we speaking of "scientific heretics"? Oh my! Now, let's see, who were some of those? Galileo, Copernicus, and many, many others! So often, it is the "heretic", so labeled, who is eventually found to be the hero!"

    The difference is that Galileo and Copernicus used scientific experiment and observation to disprove established but incorrect models. It isn't possible to go the other way, i.e., to use theories, ideas, or beliefs to disprove an experimental fact.

    He also said
    "It is clear to me that by the very fact that there are so-called scientists who label those who oppose their view as being any kind of a "denier", this whole conversation is a question of "orthodoxy" every bit as much opinionated and out of what should be the bounds of science as any such accusation has been cast in the teeth of religionists!"

    Experiment shows that rocks move downward if released a few feet above the ground. What would you call someone who says that idea is a hoax?

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    Jan. 5, 2011 1:06 p.m.

    I don't care if you are right, left or in the middle or what your views on climate change are. I care how you came to obtain those views and political positions.

    Did you actually think through ALL of the information and opinions? Are you always open to new information and therefore new positions? Are you willing to accept that men and women in the highest of church and political positions can be wrong or at least only expressing their own opinions rather than absolute truths?

    Nothing is harder for me to swallow than someone who is stuck in one rigid, unbending ideological or theological viewpoint or box. We were all blessed with logic, common sense and personal access to the spirit of God. And yet too many of us abdicate that to those we have placed in a position of power or authority.

    I absolutely respect someone who holds an entirely different opinion than mine. As long as they obtained that opinion with an open mind and sense of real curiosity.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 12:51 p.m.

    Look up the "Dust Bowl" to see how man has no control of the climate or does he?
    They didn't think so either, didn't work out so well for the farmers.
    Since Utah is high above sea level why should they care?
    The glacier behind timp is nearly gone.

    Just ignore it like healthcare and the market will fix it Right, Rightside.

  • Gr8bald1 San Diego, CA
    Jan. 5, 2011 12:37 p.m.

    This has become an emotional and political subject. In these types of articles, I find myself looking for the full, pure --- and complete truth. It is usually neither full nor complete. Nor can it be in a changing environment. Yet, to make an analysis from partial facts, one must constantly be vigilant to keep asking, "Is this the absolute truth?" Perhaps -- until more information, facts, and research come along. Then reanalyze (even the syllogism (logic train))and continue on.

    The bigger question should be, "Is the greenhouse gas increase the SOLE reason for temperature change? And is man the SOLE cause of it" A small sample size (over a relatively short period of time) is not a total representative indication of the complete whole.
    "Fudging" of data, not presenting that temperature stations have been eliminated, and/or not calibrated and meeting a constant standard, then existing sites being used to extrapolate data for the old ones is indeed just flat out poor science.
    Even NASA and NOAA do not agree.

    News articles like this are biased/flavored/ selected/framed/colored to make a readable article. Readers need to be aware of these things.

  • American First Merced, CA
    Jan. 5, 2011 12:21 p.m.

    To display a Conservative Mormon as the voice of reason in attempt to contrast and isolate the "unsophisicated" thinking of an entire Political Party is Demagoguery...The debate has never been about whether or not climate change exists, anybody who believes the Bible or B.o.M. believes that the Earth will become very unstable in the last days. The issue is really whether or not the lifestyles of humans are capable of destroying the Planet and whether or not the government has the Constitutional Authority to place a limit on freedom and liberty based on the often times greatly exaggerated studies of scientists in the hands of politicians with marxist agendas. Nice Try.

  • Jaime Lee Bonberger Houston, TX
    Jan. 5, 2011 12:14 p.m.

    It is common to remove outliers that don't match a pre-existing model. This was done at East Anglia did. They also hid unfavorable data from their critics and created graphs that were deceptive and favorable to their own position. Call it what you want - I call it fudging.

    Read the entire article you cited. You'll find that they were anything but clean in the math for their models.

    The article does not say "vindicated" in its body, it says "largely vindicated", which means there was some impropriety but did not impact the base of the science they were engaged in. That is basically my point. The improprieties were magnified by the internal emails mocking the skeptics and plotting against them. This is rich ammunition for the skeptics.

    I stand by my original statements.

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 11:49 a.m.

    The label "Climate Change Denier" evokes so much the same image as the inquisition, or the Protestant and Catholic wars against each other, or Islam killing "deniers" of Mohamed, that I genuinely question the label to begin with. Are we speaking of "scientific heretics"? Oh my! Now, let's see, who were some of those? Galileo, Copernicus, and many, many others! So often, it is the "heretic", so labeled, who is eventually found to be the hero!

    It is clear to me that by the very fact that there are so-called scientists who label those who oppose their view as being any kind of a "denier", this whole conversation is a question of "orthodoxy" every bit as much opinionated and out of what should be the bounds of science as any such accusation has been cast in the teeth of religionists!

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 11:49 a.m.

    When I was a little girl the powers that be spent hours scaring me and my classmates with the results of a atomic war. The generation before mine were scared by global cooling, a new ice age. The generation before that was scared by bathtubs, toilets and showers; they would use up all the water. The generation before that were scared by the steel plow, it would poison the earth. It is the same kind of people who believed the world was flat and they would fall off. New science comes and goes.

  • onceuponatime Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 11:48 a.m.

    Would a true conservative threaten to join the Democrats? No he would not. Sounds like a Rhino if you ask me. Sounds like someone needs to do some introspections and find out what he truly believes in. 7 out of 10 scientist say they don't believe in God, does that mean there is no God? I will always believe in God regardless of what anyone else says. I also believe that the climate would change even if everyone person on Earth left it. Some people want to use nature as an excuse to take away our freedom and fill their wallets and secure their power.

  • Hunt Spanish Fork, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 11:44 a.m.

    Amen Counter Intelligence. Some treat the names Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as if they were four letter words. In doing so they falsely assume by reciting their names ad nauseam that they can somehow shame conservatives into changing their beliefs.

    It's funny because the end result of this tactic is that they are insulting the intelligence of the very people they are trying to convince.

    Not exactly a winning recipe.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Jan. 5, 2011 11:42 a.m.

    I really don't see many people denying that there is climate change. So called "deniers" simply have some legitimate questions about climate change the proposed political solutions to combat it. For example, is climate change necessarily a bad thing, and although there is a coorelation between green house gases and climate change, does it necessarily prove that we are causing climate change? Also, if we are causing climate change, and if it is a bad thing, do the pros of proposed environmental legislation and regulation outweigh the cons? Science and politics are two different things. When scientists become political activists, I get a little skeptical. Not necessarily about the science, just the political agenda. Am I just supposed to ignore the fact that much of the environmental agenda just so happens to be right in line with the leftist/socialist/marxist agenda? Am I supposed to ignore the fact that much of the proposed environmental agenda to combat climate change targets industrialized nations and the capitalist system? Only a fool would not be at least a little bit skeptical about this. I have no problem with the science, just the calls to effectively halt all industrial production.

  • UtahnativeinliberalCA Claremont, CA
    Jan. 5, 2011 11:38 a.m.

    It is cold in California today. This global warming debate just seems to ignore that bright disc that comes up in the East on a clear morning and science still does not know its full effect with solar flares, radiation emmissions etc. We could easily put the blame on the Sun and not man. Science still has much to learn.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 5, 2011 11:34 a.m.

    Oh! those pesky facts that get in the way we want to see world. Mr. Emanuel, you are lucky the Utahn inquisition doesn't have the power of the old Holy Spanish Inquisition.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2011 11:29 a.m.

    Before there was legislation on cap and trade pending some 90% of citizens agreed that we were causing global warming. Then the right went on a stint to try to keep cap and trade from going anywhere and suddenly half the country wasn's so sure.

    Now I suspect that since there is no pending legislation facts and sense will prevail - until there is legislation about cap and trade again and then people with think with thier party instead of thier brains again.

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 11:27 a.m.

    I will concede that it is possible that man caused global warming isn't real and that at least 95% of climatologists are wrong.

    But I do know for a fact that smog is real, that it is completely caused by humans, that it is unhealthy to breath, that it makes Salt Lake City an ugly place to live sometimes (like today for instance) and that if we lowered our emission levels smog will be reduced and we will be healthier and happier.

    That being said I have a hard time believing that anybody who has actually studied climate change could possibly believe that it's a farce.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 11:17 a.m.

    As Rifleman | 10:36 a.m. points out... Earlier in our history everybody (scientists of the time included) thought the earth was flat, and the earth was the center of the universe.

    When scientists eventually got the tools to discover and PROVE that the earth was NOT flat and NOT the center of the Universe... that was a revolution... and some people resisted the new idea.

    But there is a DIFFERENCE in the Global Warming community. They not only want you to accept that warming is happening (which it is) but they want you to STOP IT! That would be like the scientists of the time insisting that people make the earth FLAT... or make the Earth the center of the Universe.

    The problem is... the disciples of the Global Warming cult today want man to change nature (the climate) to conform with that THEY think it SHOULD be. Not what it IS.

    Maybe the new climate conditions are the NORM (If there is such a thing as a permanent norm when it comes to global climate). Who's to say it isn't just another natural cycle that will eventually revert on it's own?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 11:07 a.m.

    Re: ". . . human-caused climate change . . . is a scientific issue, not a political issue. . . ."

    Therein lies the problem.

    Climate "science," a soft science, like psychology, economics, or . . . reflexology, substitutes academic consensus for experimental confirmation.

    And, like reflexology, it's still reaching for acceptance because, for the most part, its theories are untestable, its models, highly debateable, and its conclusions, political.

    Assume, for the moment, climate change is real. So what? The climate has always changed. Climate "science" only demonstrates the obvious.

    Assume, for the moment, it's man-caused. So what? Man-caused, protozoa-caused, solar-caused, something always causes it. Again, the obvious.

    The important issue -- what, if anything, do we do about it -- is strictly political.

    That's where these "conservatives" reveal themselves as anything but.

    Rather than engage their "science" -- at least to the level of its predictive acuity -- to inform the political process, they've become partisan advocates of a socialist "solution."

    If they really were conservative, they'd be more interested in pursuing "solutions" with less impact on freedom.

    And less interested in pursuing academic prestige.

  • American First Merced, CA
    Jan. 5, 2011 11:05 a.m.

    More demagoguery from Dessert News...The debate has never been about whether Climate Change exists, anybody who reads the Bible or the B.o.M. knows that the Earth will become very unstable before the Second Coming. The debate is whether or not everyday human behavior has the capacity to destroy the planet. This is about Government limiting freedom and liberty based on large amounts of false information conjured up by certain scientists and politicians with marxist political agendas.

  • On the other hand Spanish Fork, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:57 a.m.

    There's a difference between scientific skepticism and willful ignorance. Scientific skepticism involves critically reviewing published, peer-reviewed research and trying to identify weaknesses in the authors' data, methodology, or conclusions, then, if possible, either pointing out those weaknesses in a reputable forum, or publishing one's own peer-reviewed research using data, methodology, or conclusions which address the perceived flaws in the previous research. One who is scientifically skeptical follows (and, ideally, participates in) the scientific debate, always weighing the evidence on both sides and reevaluating one's position when new evidence presents itself.

    Willful ignorance, on the other hand, involves maintaining an arm's-length distance from published science, instead forming one's opinion based on the claims of pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck; thereafter considering only those snippets of information which support that opinion, and dismissing experts with whom one disagrees, generally using one of these criticisms: their party affiliation, disloyalty to the party platform (RINOism), or the fact that they make a living studying the climate (and must therefore be somehow compelled to conclude that it is warming--as if scientific research were funded on the basis of what was concluded).

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:56 a.m.

    Are we not warned of great pollutions, climate and geological extremes in the scriptures? How do we think these things take place?

  • sisucas San Bernardino, CA
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:53 a.m.

    People blow off global warming because the science just isn't strong enough, and probably never will be. All the observational studies and computer models in the world will never have enough accuracy or scientific strength to definitively prove whether global warming is happening or whether humans are influencing it. Conservatives simply think it's foolish to advocate huge changes based on lousy science. The limitation of scientific study are the cause of the debate that continues to exist and a prudent scientist would recognize the shortcomings of studying a system that cannot be prospectively studied.

  • Charles History Tooele, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:53 a.m.

    Re: "Rifleman" 10:36


    You do not know the first thing about history. The great minds of any time knew. It is and will always be the the ignorant conservatives that fight to keep their status.

    Please try to talk about something you know. I do not know about why climate change is real but the true professionals tell us that it is real. I do not know how to perform hear surgery, maybe you would want Glen B. to perform yours?

    Let the people that know their jobs do their jobs, this should not be about politics.

  • Considering Stockton, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:50 a.m.

    I don't deny the climate is changing. It has always changed. Hence we have had periods of ice ages, periods of tropical weather very far north, periods of drought, periods when most of Utah was under Lake Bonneville.

    I question the extent of change at this time especially given well known but under-reported issues of weather station siting problems.

    I question the methods and integrity of those who preach global warming given recent information in leaked emails and such.

    I do highly question the extent to which human activity is contributing to climate change.

    I question the extent to which any reasonable changes in human activity could affect climate change (for better or worse). If we all went back to living in caves, how much difference would it make on the climate?

    I question the extent to which climate change is a bad thing. Is a warmer climate with longer growing season at higher latitudes really a problem?

    And I seriously question the extent to which any government, much less the federal government, the UN, or any other international body should be given power to micromanage our lives using the climate as an excuse.

  • Weber State Graduate Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:49 a.m.

    The problem is that "global warming" has moved out of the realm of climate science, hijacked by the left, and turned into political hyperbole. Inventing an apocalyptic "crisis" is a clever means to leverage power and hastily implement bad policy without thoughtfully considering the ramifications and potential damage certain actions might create for society and the economy.

    Emanuel is simply incorrect when he states that "Scientists are being asked to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is an imminent danger before we as a society do anything." That's a red herring for hasty action and does a disservice to the scientific process. Perhaps a better response would be that "science is being asked to thoughtfully investigate the issue and provide reasonable information without allowing politics and political agendas to corrupt the scientific process."

    Itss unfortunate that science can't investigate this issue more thoughtfully without the political histrionics from both sides infiltrating the discussion at the expense of scientific credibility.

    The fact is, the science behind climate change is far from being absolute and many credible scientists reasonably differ in their theories...that's what good science is all about.

  • bodgerdlue Kearns, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:49 a.m.

    So what we have here is a scientist who through his own sceptecism on the subject of global warming took the time to use the scientific method to try to test the hypothesis that global warming not only happens, but is linked to greenhouse gasses. As a result of this scientists studies he found that in multiple instances where global warming is linked to changing weather phenomenon as well as the rise in greenhouse gass emissions. This is also a man who has leaned towards the Republican party for years, but due to the fact that the Republican party simply denies any science on the subject as hokom (based only on their words and no science to back it up) this man has come to question his political aliance.

    The problem with this is that most posters here couldn't give two figs about the fact that this man has done extensive research on the subject. They don't care that this man was just as sceptical about climate science as most of them are, but actually studied the issue and found out for himself the truth of the matter. Nope, they saw the name Obama and stopped listening.

  • newsy Richfield, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:44 a.m.

    You can believe anything you want but global warming and climate change are a hoax, proven by the admission of the original climatologists who purposefully tossed out raw data on the rise of global temperatures over the last 150 years. Mankind cannot possibly generate enough pollution to even begin to dent the ozone or cause climate change and global warming. True scientists believe this and this scientist just follows another liberal agenda designed to gain political power, money and social status.

  • JoeCapitalist Orem, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:36 a.m.

    The question "Do you believe in climate change?" is no longer a YES-NO type of question.

    The issue of global warming encompasses a whole package of ideas so even if you believe that the Earth is currently in a warming cycle, you can't just answer YES or it will be assumed that you also support all the radical, political, global warming agenda.

    Likewise, if you reject the Al Gore alarmist position, you can't just answer NO, or it will be assumed by many that you have your head in the sand and want to burn all scientists at the stake as heretics.

    Just like the questions "Do you believe in evolution?", "Do you support giving women choices?" and "Do you support our military?, people with positions between the two extremes cannot feel comfortable giving a YES or NO answer.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:36 a.m.

    There was a time when all the greatest minds in the world taught that the earth was flat and if you got too close to the edge you'd fall off. About the same time people were told that the earth was the center of the universe.

    Today Chicken Little and all his friends are telling us the sky is falling, and a lot of gullible folks are in a panic over it.

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:32 a.m.

    What does this 'scientist' know? He's just studied climate science for much of his adult life. Big deal.

    Sheesh, Glenn Beck is waaaaaay smarter than this guy when it comes to climate science. So is Rush Limbaugh for that matter.

    Wake up, people! Glenn Beck for President!

  • Otis Spurlock Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:22 a.m.

    A scientist not afraid of facts or the truth. Keep up the good work and don't get discouraged. It must be a little like trying to show Fundamental Christians that evolution is a fact and not a theory.

  • Opi Spanish Fork, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:22 a.m.

    Right on. We have been given stewardship over this earth and it's about time we actually start caring what we're doing to it. We ARE harming it and it's not okay. I don't believe God is pleased with the harm coming to the earth because of us.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:20 a.m.

    Party affiliations are of minimal importance and certainly don't relate to climate change. The definition of conservative or liberal is not well defined and is should not be defined by a litmus issue. Those who hide behind party labels, i.e Republicans are greedy and Democrats are welfare bums, are the bane of democracy.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:04 a.m.

    It's the ultimate in arrogance to believe that mankind can do ANYTHING to stop the climate from changing. We just don't have that kind of power.

    What we need to do instead is say, "okay, the climate is changing. Let's make adjustments and get ready for it instead of trying to keep it from changing." That makes a lot more sense than trying to stop it from changing. It might even have some benefits. Actually, a thousand years ago the climate was warmer and it was VERY beneficial to the residence of mother earth.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2011 10:03 a.m.

    Well the problem is he just doesn't realize that he may be socialy conservative but shouldn't really be a republican. He should vote on issues as an independent as all patriots should do. Are you an American, Repulican, or Democrat? Choose one.

  • Mr. Bean SLC, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:59 a.m.

    @Fitness Freak:

    "...just so we don't have to shovel bucketloads of money at them to 'prove' their theories!"

    Yeah, and more bucketsloads of money at the government in the form of carbon credits and taxes.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:57 a.m.

    'We can do things to help keep the planet more clean...' - DarenAZ | 9:35 a.m.


    *Alaska Oil Spill: Trans-Alaska Pipeline Shuts Down 800 Mile Area In North Slope' - Huffington Post - 07/26/10

    'Fourth, quit fudging the data' - Jaime Lee Bonberger | 9:40 a.m.

    No data was 'fudged', only the constant claim it was.

    *'"Climategate" Leak Report Vindicates Scientists' - CBS News - 07/07/10

    'Independent Finding Shows No Evidence Of Wrongdoing After Examination of Climate Researchers' E-Mails'

    Jamie, even YOU support no wrong doing...after you claim there WAS wrong doing.

    'While nothing substantial was uncovered with regards to overall model altering...' - Jaime Lee Bonberger | 9:40 a.m.


    *'Study says coal burning in Utah kills 202 a year' - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/19/10

    *'Red air quality alert issued' - AP - Published by DSNews - 01/05/11

    Lets DO something together to make our air better locally at least.

    Not more abstract claims that Obama's a socialist.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:55 a.m.

    His income is based on whether or not he gets to study "climate change" "global warming" "global cooling" and other faux sciences.

    The earth has been covered with ice, the ice has nearly melted away in it's history. It's a cycle that has been going on for millions of years. Long before cars were on the road.

    How can someone say they're conservative and not adhere to all conservative values and ideologies? Sounds like he's more of a centrist. That's like saying you're a vegetarian, but, found red meat refreshing and delicious and okay to eat. But, the rest of the meats are bad. You're really not a vegetarian at that point.

  • JFFR Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:55 a.m.

    Too many people have let Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh convince them that Global Warming isn't real. What do these guys know about climate? Why should we trust them?

    Just because Al Gore made a horribly biased movie about it, doesn't mean it isn't real.

  • JP Chandler, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:52 a.m.

    Imagine you are a specialist in a field. You dedicate years of research to that field. Eventually you reach a conclusion that a drastic change is needed now to prevent more drastic and detrimental change down the road. You think "Good thing we figured this out now while there's still a chance to fix it. Better alert the media." You let the world know. Then, you spend the next decade getting slammed by politicians in your own party who believe whatever their electorate tells them to believe, and by the electorate who's only knowledge on the subject comes from their favorite political pundit.
    I'd be pretty frustrated.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:51 a.m.

    As I read this article... I kept getting the feeling I was reading a Provda_propaganda_piece. Not shareing info... but tell me, what I (and everyone) should believe. Trying to convince me... not put information out there to use in forming my own opinion... but going that critical step further... trying to FORM the opinion for me... and feed it to me. And show readers what the only possible conclusion is.

    I think I am quite conservative too. And I don't deny the science and concensus on warming. But I do reject all the hype and chicken-little religiousity that seems to go along with it in SOME people.

    Sure.... warming is happening. And if it continues it could be a problem. But nature seems to have a way of turning things like this around (sometimes in cycles that are too large for us humans to see and comprehend because some of Earth's cycles are so huge compared to ours).

    I don't know if this warming will be planet_ending (as some keep saying). The earth and humanity have survived many climate_changes. We adapt. The climate adapts with natural cycles. Like it cyclically adapts to El_nino and La_nina.

  • ExecutorIoh West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:48 a.m.

    I too am a climate scientist and work daily in the study and disaster prevention from extreme precipitation events. While I agree that signs appear to show the temperatures rising over the last decade, the climate is far too complex to attribute a rise in a trace gas to global warming. Co2 makes up only 0.037% of the overall atmosphere. This is a good reason to be skeptical. Another reason is that climate change science is funding by a politically active, liberally leaning, group. If the science were completely disassociated from politics. From the maturation cycles of the sun, the Earth's temperature should gradually increase naturally, but that too isn't widely considered as a cause for climate change because it doesn't help in a socialist political agenda. Forgive all this, but until I see better evidence and it isn't linked to politics, I will continue to be a climate change skeptic.

    Note: A Radical by definition is an extremely liberal person. Revolutionary is an extremely conservative person. To hear politicians refer to conservative people with extreme ideas as Radical is just plain ignorant.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:44 a.m.

    From Counter Intellignece we have

    "1) If Emanuel voted for Obama - then he clearly is not a Republican or a consrvative."

    I think this speaks to where the "conservative" party is heading. The list of litmus test the party is now creating before you can call your self a conservative is ever growing. Evidently you must now always vote party line, and second, doubt science.

    Looks like I got out just in time or else I would have been excommunicated from the party. How in the world does the party elite expect to win national races when they keep telling people they are not pure enough.

    Sounds like it is time for a real third party.

  • JustAnotherAverageGuy Holladay, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:43 a.m.

    Like several others above, I don't deny that climate change occurs. I suspect man has some element of influence on it, but the degree of that influence is tough to quantify because of the rapid pace of change in human civilization as compared to the relatively slow pace of climate change.

    My real aversion though is to the politicization of the whole phenomenon by the left, and their attempts to demonize those who dare disagree with them.

  • Jaime Lee Bonberger Houston, TX
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:40 a.m.

    I think it would help the cause of convincing the deniers if a few changes were made on the official faces and messages of climate change advocacy. For example:

    First, get rid of the crack-pot spokespeople. Al Gore does more harm than good by his hyperbole and arrogance.

    Second, educate the liberal politicians. It only hurts the cause when Harry Reid blames California wildfires on global warming. Such ludicrous exaggerations are latched on to by deniers and used for continued justification of their views.

    Third, stop making specific dire predictions and warnings. Several years ago one of the British global climate scientists predicted that "within a few years" Britain would never see snow again due to climate change. The deniers are having a field day as the English enjoy record snowfall this winter. Past predictions of rising seas fall on deaf ears when coastline boaters see no difference at all in tide levels over 20 years.

    Fourth, quit fudging the data. The East Anglia email fiasco was very enlightening and disturbing. While nothing substantial was uncovered with regards to overall model altering, the presence of impropriety in dealing with "undesirable" data set climate change education back several years.

  • DarenAZ Mesa, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:35 a.m.

    The weather and climates have never been constant. They are constantly changing and cyclying. The annoying aspect of this is that humans have caused it. That is ridiculous. We can do things to help keep the planet more clean;however the hysteria and the fearmongering from the global warming crowd is simply an effort to take more of our freedoms and liberties away and to make as much money as possible before everyone realizes that we will never have any effect on what the weather does.

  • We the People Sandy, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:35 a.m.

    The Deseret News strikes another blow against conservatives. Not surprising, really.

  • MVH Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:32 a.m.

    No real conservative would vote for Obama. Calling ADW "deniers" extremist and voting for Obama are two major red flags that say "Hey everybody! I am a liberal!"

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:28 a.m.

    Scientists can claim "climate change, global warming, the sky is falling, etc.", just so we don't have to shovel bucketloads of money at them to "prove" their theories!

    Make all the "claims" you want, just don't make me pay for those claims through higher tuition, government subsidies, grants, etc.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:26 a.m.

    'Emanuel is also a highly regarded professor of atmospheric science at MIT. And based on his work on hurricanes and the research of his peers, Emanuel has concluded that the scientific data show a powerful link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.' - Article

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:22 a.m.

    Did the article mention that Emanuel's best friend is chicken little?

  • PDonty Tooele, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:06 a.m.

    So he's a conservative that voted for Obama? That's the most conservative scientist they could come up with for the article?

  • Richard Saunders Provo, UT
    Jan. 5, 2011 9:00 a.m.

    As a 'conservative' myself, I don't think the fight really is if the climate is changing or if man is the cause of it. I believe most conservatives are just apprehensive about government trying to fix anything because they usually make it worse. Unfortunately, leading conservatives have chosen to stake out the fight as being whether or not climate change is happening and if it is manmade. The question I don't think is asked enough is do we trust politicians and scientists(I don't care how much science they use, they still have political opinions) to do what's right for EVERYBODY? I would say NO! today, and NO! a thousand times. When I think about scientists and politicians that advocate heavy government restrictions to try to change something, I can't help but think of the Joker's words to Harvey Dent, "You know, theyre schemers. Schemers trying to control their worlds. Im not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how, pathetic, their attempts to control things really are."