Quantcast

Comments about ‘Studies: Global warming, climate science far from settled’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Aug. 1 2011 4:43 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
conservative scientist
Lindon, UT

You can be sure of poor science when the conclusion to any scientific inquiry is already "settled" and not open for debate. The most lively fields of science, such as medicine, are constantly having new and unexpected findings. Sometimes these are findings which turn a whole scientific community on its head and reverse many of the preconceived notions of the scientists. If medicine were to stick with all the "conclusions" of 50 or 100 years ago, it would be a very poor scientific field with many false and dangerous ideas.

If man-made global warming is real, then let all the science - pro and con - come together in a non-political discussion so scientists can make the most informed decisions. To immediately disregard anything that disagrees with the anthropomorphic global climate-change model without examining it on its merits is to really give credence to the skeptics. Good science is done by experiment, by examining data, and then by drawing appropriate conclusions. Good science is not done by majority vote, by coercion, by bullying, and by suppressing discussion and dissent.

runwasatch
Ogden, UT

Create a theory and then look for evidence to support it. Great science!!

Never mind what the evidence shows; never mind the actual data.

Let's all believe the computer models based on assumptions and guesses (working together so well because of Al Gore's inventing the internet).

It's a lovely world when you're a liberal...you just say it's so...whatever you want...and it's so. Disagree and you're vilified and called a terrorist by the Vice President!

Thank heavens we spewed more CO2 into the air back in the 70's...you know when the same nuts were screaming we were going into a new iceage?? It sure would be miserably cold if we hadn't...they were right about the iceage...right??

sjgf
South Jordan, UT

If this article communicated anything, it was that the "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" or whatever they call it now, is a political issue, not a scientific issue.

If we want an excuse to spend more in taxes, we vote for politicians that will further the politics of global warming. If we would rather not spend more in taxes, then we vote for politicians that further the politics against global warming. After all, this is a beauty contest, not science.

(This reminds me of the "Camelot" Broadway musical, in which laws were made to outlaw snowing except between December and February. Man-made laws, to achieve political ends, somehow don't seem to work with Mother Nature.)

micawber
Centerville, UT

Whenever someone says Al Gore invented the internet, I know they probably aren't very well informed.

EvenLogic
Smithfield, UT

Errmm. Runwasatch was being sarcastic. Al Gore, did say that he took the "initiative in creating the internet".
It's just too fun and easy to make fun of his ridiculous statements and assertions.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

1. We can't predict the path of a hurricane 12 hours out so how can we forecast the climate decades out?
2. The hacked email from EAU (East Anglican University) show they were trying to hide the fact that they were distorting the data.
3. When you look at the treaties that they want us to sign you understand that this is an attach on our freedom.

I refuse to sacrifice my family, beautify daughters or our economy to the climate gods. It makes just as much sense to sacrifice our daughters to the volcano gods just because some medicine man told us that we need to.

Nope: I am a senior research engineer and know too much science to believe the predicting the climate is even possible.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

"In a study published July 25 in the science journal Remote Sensing, William Braswell and Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center, suggest the Earths atmosphere is more efficient at releasing energy into space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to believe.
See, some of us tried to tell you this global warming hoax was supported by junk science! Yep, that's consensus science for you!

deseret pete
robertson, Wy

When I was in high school in the fifties they told us we were all going to freeze to death.They used the same argument then for the reasons as they do now only we are going to fry.The climate will change no matter how many tax dollars we throw at it.We need to cool down all the hot air in Washington and Al Gore's neighboohood. It will be just as effective as the solutions they are trying to sell us and the world.

MormonDem
Provo, UT

Nothing new here at all. It's the same old MO by the deniers. Muddy the waters with cherry-picked data. You can already find refutations of this nonsense by mainstream scientists. For a sound trouncing of this so-called science, look up the response by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo.

Even the author himself, a climate change doubter, has already backpedaled from the sensationalist headlines that the rightwing press has trumpeted about the study.

The same scientists who doubt climate change today are the ones who were hired by the tobacco companies to doubt the danger of tobacco thirty years ago.

97% of climate scientists believe climate change is real and exacerbated by humans.

If 9 out of 10 oncologists said I had cancer, do you think I'd ignore them and listen to the one herbalist that told me to just drink a green smoothie?

MormonDem
Provo, UT

There was a great story on Radio West today analyzing why quack climate-change-doubter science gets traction in the media, even though only a tiny fringe minority of scientists subscribe to it. Here in America, we pick and choose the science that we believe according to whatever science is most friendly to our political point of view. In the rest of the world, they're investing in clean technologies and devoting more and more resources to research. We're getting left in the dust.

I live just down the road from the wind farm at the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon. Nearly every nut and bolt of that thing was imported, because we've been too busy in this country arguing with the quack doubters to develop the technologies that response to actual science. It's as if we'd recused ourselves from the space race because a few fringe scientists didn't believe the moon was real.

The rest of the world laughs at us that we've even politicized this issue. It's ignorance on a massive scale.

Petra
Sanpete County, UT

Even if you don't "believe" in climate change, the same things that cause climate change also cause pollution, and we know that is real. The entire world will be better off without such pollution (not to mention not fighting wars for oil), our country will be better off if we take the lead if developing and producing the solutions, and our cities will be much more livable if we convert to cleaner, renewable energy.

And if, along the way, we happen to prevent catastrophic climate change by addressing our pollution issues, so much the better.

Bubble
SLC, UT

Hmm - so, here we have this story where the majority of the support on the "no climate change" side of the debate is provided by scientists who have backpedaled on their findings or by non-scientists....

Also in today's paper is a story of a dry region of Chile that has gotten more rain in the month of July than they normally get in a year (and yes, they were really surprised because their rainfall has been declining and it was thought that climate change would make it more of a desert, not less of one).

And on Yahoo, there is a story about the record number of records broken by July's heat.

The debate is not about whether or not climate change is occurring - the debate is about what is causing it and what can be done about it. And ultimately - will humans survive it?

Solutions not Stones
Spanish Fork, UT

I would love for some enterprising journalist to do a story on which hypothesis is more likely to get you a grant if you are a researcher: "Global Warming is Agenda Science" or "Global Warming is now called Climate Change and it will Kill Us All!!!"

cjb
Bountiful, UT

If the evidence were valid. Why the fraud?

Fool me once shame on you ...

AZEIR
Phoenix, AZ

Funny how none of these studies refute basic physics that heat melts ice. I'm no scientist, but when you can literally watch the polar ice caps melt, millions-year-old glaciers melt, high-altitude mountain snow caps melt, I think it's a pretty safe bet something is getting warmer.

You can deny the cause all you want, but are you REALLY willing to be the planet on your theory the planet isn't warming when you can watch all of this ice melt?

Demisana
South Jordan, UT

Sigh...

What's the net change in global ice? Since Antarctica ice has been growing...

Since when is carbon dioxide a pollutant??? Hello - it's the natural biproduct of carbon based animal life - and needed by plant life. Plant a few more trees, already.

Exactly how much carbon dioxide are we talking about humans contributing, compared to the amount already naturally occurring? Far less than 1 percent.

What's the cost vs. benefit of reducing our carbon contribution? Even the most optimistic global warming science suggests that we'd have to cut our energy usage by 80 percent or more, in order to reduce global temperatures by less than 1 degree F. Can you imagine the level of human suffering caused by such drastic cuts? Unemployment, famine, disease...

Much of the global warming hysteria serves to keep third world countries from developing - oh the horrors if all those people got cars and electricity. Totally ignoring the fact that they'd then not be burning carbon to cook, and using flatulent animals for transport. Not to mention the single biggest factor in environmental cleanliness is the ability to AFFORD to use less polluting methods.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ AZEIR. Ice has been melting on earth for millions of years, long before SUVs. At one time, most of N. America was covering in ice, but thankfully, most of it melted so we could live here! Intelligent design?

Professor
Salem, UT

Brigham Young University Life Science professor Tom Smith, is a "pal" of Charles Monnett. Tom and the BYU Life Sciences has based an entire polar bear research project on the work of Charles. On their web site, BYU Life Sciences quotes the discredited Charles Monnett claim: "The reduction of sea ice is having a dramatic impact on polar bear populations."

Researching polar bear populations is certainly a worthwhile scientific project, but basing the study on discredited science is academically unsound as it invalidates the entire study while destroying the credibility of the institution sponsoring the study.

And what about Monnett's polar ice cap melt? It is easy to find the NASA satellite images of the Polar Cap. They began photographing them in 1980. Comparing 1980 with 2011 sets the record straight concerning ice cap melt, and it does not support the Charles Monnett/BYU claim.

JP
Chandler, AZ

I'm always amazed at the armchair scientists who are so certain they know better than 90% of the people who have spent their entire careers studying this. I'm guessing the majority of the people behind these comments believe what they believe because their pundit of choice told them so.

If you'd like to actually become informed on the subject before entrenching yourself in your chosen view, check out skepticalscience.

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

Tell that to the retreating glaciers, rising ocean temperatures, atmospheric CO2, earlier migration of birds, erratic weather patterns and a long list of climate changes. Polls are a measure of public awareness, not scientific fact.

to comment

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