Comments about ‘Jay Ambrose: Treat global warming cautiously’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Feb. 20 2011 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
T. Party
Pleasant Grove, UT

I'm going to clap my hands over my ears and pretend I didn't hear those differing scientific opinions. Don't you know we have "consensus"?

Utahn in CT
New Haven, CT

It is irresponsible of the DN to publish stuff like this. You can rail against facts, but they still remain what they are.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Great article! Would someone please send it to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama with a cc to Al Gore?

wbm
Woods Cross, UT

It is frustrating to listen to the Global Warming Debate, because everyone seems to be asking the wrong questions. As is the debate is stuck between the Chicken Little's, and those with their head in the sand. The Chicken Little's will believe any disaster scenario, while the head in the sand crowd refuses to believe anything no mater the proof. Here are some questions I think are important.

How much is the climate changing?

How much of climate change is human caused?

What are the likely affects of climate change?

What are the possible ways of mitigating climate change?

Of each of the possibilities of dealing with climate change what are the pros and the cons? Every option after all has its pluses and minuses.

What is the best way for dealing with Climate change? By this I mean that I want to know the plan that has the best combination of pros with the lowest amount of cons.

Of these questions I think the most urgent is how big of a problem are we facing. In the current debate we are arguing between two extremes, neither of which may be correct.

Anti Bush-Obama
Washington DC, MD

Even when we are seeing a record year in cold fronts, it must be just blistering outside. I gotta put on my sunscreen everytime I go out in that -13 degree weather. I just might die of heatstroke.

Some people are so messed up that even if we have an ice age, they will still be spewing this nonsense. Now if they were saying that the earth was shifting, then it might be just a little more credible.

Don't forget your preschool educations now. I know Al Gore has a new interpretation for Hot and Cold. Here is how you can remember. Objects in your freezer are COLD. Anything taken out of your oven is HOT. Now why don't you try this excercise?

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

Climatologists agree on man Co2 causing global emmissions.

Sociologists agree we won't do much about it. The best we will do is spread the warming out over a longer time giving us and those displaced by rising oceans and desertification more time to adapt.

Of course you can just stick with, "Nu uuhhhhhhh!"

10CC
Bountiful, UT

T. Party:

There is in fact a difference between "consensus" and "unanimity". Look it up.

Example: Not all scientists believe smoking causes cancer. I have a cousin who died from lung cancer, but never smoked. Maybe, just maybe, the government was using their campaign against cigarettes as an excuse to take away liberty, or at least prepare us for a broader anti-liberty campaign.

You just never know, huh?

;)

other
Salt Lake City, UT

There is a consensus amoung scientists that climate change is real. There are always a few contrarians, but most of these are not real scientists and there is a serious campaign being financed by big oil and coal companies to discredit science.

Climate change is causing world warming, but this may actually result in more snow due to lake affects from normally frozen-over oceans at the extreme north.

Regardless of the debate over climate change though, it is in our national interests to persue a path of clean green renewable energy and energy independence.

goitalone
w bountiful, ut

The GW alarmists are just as vocal as the anti's in shouting down the reason of their opposition.

The "facts" as the proponents call them are not just in the need to protect our planet. There are also economic and sociological facts to be considered.

Let's assume for a moment that the Gore-ites are completely correct. There are still the enormous issues to be sifted as to how to implement, explore and administer solutions which are nowhere near "concensus" in fact.

The writer merely points out that there are indeed other factors, and immediately the GW extremeists shout down anything that abuts their sacred theory.

Extremeism on either side is the biggest hindrance to any substantive agreement and/or soulution for the problems we face. Knee jerks on the left are no less helpful than head in the sand on the right.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Anti-BushObama

Yes it's cold in D.C. however globally it was the about 15th warmest January on record. (more Arctic blasts down south into the US means that up near Greenland it was way above average). This was largely due to the la nina in effect which tends to lead to cooler years although 15th warmest is notably pretty high for an over-100 year dataset.

@T.Party
Yes the paper notes some distinguished scientists who don't believe man plays much of if any role in climate change (at least Lindzen is, I'm not too familiar with the other one noted but I'll assume he is too). However, the vast majority of climate scientists disagree with them.

@goitalone
"There are still the enormous issues to be sifted as to how to implement, explore and administer solutions which are nowhere near "concensus" in fact."

Absolutely, many climate scientists completely stay out of the realm of policymaking. Science and policy are two separate issues. Many scientists (the ones whose names nobody knows) sticks with science only, Hansen of NASA is one that deals with both and Gore is policy only since he's not a scientist.

Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena
Provo, UT

Scare stories sell newspapers. Just ask Rupert Murdoch and the writers at Fox News. However, the reality keeps popping up and we can't ignore the fact of the situation.

OK, so there are those who say "global warming is a fraud", ignore scientific findings and projections, and just look outside and see it snowing.

However, there are those in the energy industry who acknowledge that global warming is a reality, but insisit it is all natural and isn't because of the burning of fossil fuels. It's much like Ronald Reagan saying that pollution is caused by trees.

Then there are those far off on the other end who say that global warming is advancing so fast that the Utah will be a West Coast state next week.

There appear to be four sides to this question:

1. Those who deny global warming completely.

2. Those who accept global warming but deny human contributions to pollution.

3. Those who think we need to get ready for another, immenient Great Flood.

4. Those who see global warming as a threat and acknowledge human activity as a contributor.

So, what makes sense to you?

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I don't think it's Global_Warming itself that needs to be treated cautiously... it's the people SURROUNDING the Global_Warming movement that have to be scrutinized to confirm what their real motivations are.

Al Gore? Michael Moore? and others... What do THEY know about science or climate???

Most of these people stand to reap fortune, fame, economic or political POWER from this movement being accepted widely and the movement AND their solutions being embraced by the New World Order.

---

If the people leading the effort to make the case for Global_Warming were scientists (not buffoons, politicians and opportunists)... I would have an easier time giving my full support to the solutions they are proposing. But so far the solutions just seem rigged to enrich these people or the reputations of the scientists who came up with the most supportive data to help them achieve their goals.

---

I guess I'm just a skeptic. But I've been around a long time... and I've seen TONS of these earth ending scare_tactics hyped_up and eventually dissolve. And I've seen the people who try to take advantage of the crisis and the opportunity it presents.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

alenalena | 3:12 p.m.

I vote for #5...
Global Warming is real. It's happening and their are both Natural AND Man_Caused contributions. It's both a natural cycle AND man is contributing to the affect.

The problem with that being the case is... You can't blame it totally on man OR nature. So it's a tougher problem to solve than just saying, "It's MAN's fault... until Man is enslaved or exterminated we have a problem"... or the OTHER extreme... "It's only Nature... and we all know puny man can't completely control Nature".

So my dilemna is... man can't 100% solve it (even WITH international power-glots, environmental police, New World Order type unelected Global Governance, etc). And Nature alone can't solve it (because man IS a contributing factor).

So even if man did all he could... Even if man were exterminaged it's quite possible the problem would remain. And since we aren't going to exterminate man anyway... why even pretend that man alone (or GOVERNMENT alone) can solve the problem.

This may be a natural_cycle... but maybe not.

So... We need to work together (man_AND_Nature).

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Ambrose: "While some fanatically vile environmental activists try to make it sound as if anyone disagreeing with their conjectures is on the take..."

It is the rare climate change op-ed or online discussion thread that does not not include some comment that climate scientists push AGW to keep their grants coming. Ironically, this thread defies that observation, so far.

I could take Ambrose more seriously on climate if his closing DDT caveat wasn't so muddled on science, policy, and history. I could take climate change skeptics in general more seriously if their positions on other scientific issues were more reasoned and credible. I suspect the Venn diagram of the set of creationists and the set climate change skeptics looks a lot like a Target logo.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments