Scientists include BYU professor Barry Bickmore
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."
So he's a conservative that voted for Obama? That's the most conservative
scientist they could come up with for the article?
Did the article mention that Emanuel's best friend is chicken little?
'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
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.
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!"
The Deseret News strikes another blow against conservatives. Not surprising,
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
'We can do things to help keep the planet more clean...' - DarenAZ | 9:35 a.m.
False. *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 Line:'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. Finally... *'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
@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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Re: "Rifleman" 10:36NOT TRUE!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.
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.
Are we not warned of great pollutions, climate and geological extremes in the
scriptures? How do we think these things take place?
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).
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Pagan,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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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).
'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 -
07/07/10Line:'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 - 07/10/10Line: '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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'One of the reasons he left his birthplace village in Kenya was because he...' -
Corn Dog | 2:23 p.m. Wow. 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'
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.FalseWe 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.
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.
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.
@Happy Valley HereticSo why do liberals like the Obamas, Pelosi, and
Al Gore fly so much?Hypocrites.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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)
Sooo, who can explain the climate change that has taken place before man was on
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
@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."
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-Ween - interesting catch. I will have to some more reading to do. Thanks.
I would like to understand what is being promised and how.
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.
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.
Twin Lights,Will you please run for public office!Thank
you for sound reasoning and an excellent comment.
"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
"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
@ 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?
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
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...
Re: "charlie91342" 12:30You 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.
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.
When is global warming going to start effecting our winters? I can't wait!
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: THE SCIENTISTS PERFORMING THE RESEARCH ON GLOBAL
WARMING!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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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 "IT'S A
CRISIS OF EPIC PROPORTIONS!". 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
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.
"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 . . .
"Never mind that the policy costs several times that of your mortgage"
- cute, but where is the numbers to back the rhetoric?
"Where ARE the numbers to back the rhetoric?" Where's the irrefutable
and indisputable science to back man made climate change? Silly,radical person.
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.