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

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Aug. 1 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ed Darrell
Dallas, Texas

[quote]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.[end quote]

I think you've still misquoted him.

Al Gore was the only Member of Congress who protested the attempts to kill ARPANET, the forerunner to the internet, back in the Reagan administration. Gore said we couldn't afford to kill it, because while it was mostly college professors and researchers using at the time, it had commercial possibilities moving information electronically.

Gore was right. He prevailed after a massive campaign. He was far-sighted, and deserves all the credit you wish to deny him for being visionary. Of course, the people at Apple and Google recognized that, and put him on their boards. In the marketplace, Al Gore's value is recognized.

Bountiful, UT

If the evidence were valid. Why the fraud?

Fool me once shame on you ...

Mcallen, TX

Points to ponder:

1. Al Gore flunked science in high school.
2. In college Al Gore got a "D" in science.
3. When has climate not changed?
4. Water expands when frozen. If icebergs were to melt, the oceans would recede, -not flood the coastlines.
5. Using heat index to report temperatures has led people into thinking this is a really hot summer.
6. When reporting melting icebergs and polar bears, the pictures need to be in January and not July, and salt water lowers the freezing point.
7. Our government leaders have caused more problems than climate change.

Henderson, NV

I can understand the complaints about uninformed people spouting off their opinions that Global Warming isn't a big problem, but what I don't understand is why certain people aren't equally skeptical of equally uninformed politicians and their drastic solutions to a problem they don't fully understand either.


Roy Spencer, in the journal Remote Sensing...

This is the same Roy Spencer who is a regular guest on Coast to Coast AM, the late night conspiracy radio show started by Art Bell.

Am I the only one that finds it hysterical he is cited as a credible source?

USS Enterprise, UT

To "MormonDem | 9:31 p.m." actually, you don't have to cherry pick data to find all of the flaws in the Global Warming/Climate Change theories. All you need to do is go to the data sources and you can see where the flaws start.

The UK Register's article "Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer" show how NASA has been adjusting the temperatures to show global warming over the past 10 years. The raw data showed that the US has been cooling during the 20th century. The "adjusted" data shows warming. Why would that be?

The NOAA web site has a map of all of the Available GHCN Temperature Stations. You should note that there are large gaps in the spacing throughout Africa, the Oceans, and the Poles. Between datapoints, they interpolate, which is a bad thing to do over thousands of miles.

Also, if you take the UAH, RSS, and NASA data since 1979 or so, the data collected from satelites shows either no warming or else a slight cooling, while only the NASA landbased data shows warming.

Those are a few ideas that shoot large holes in GW theories.


So 90%+ of relevant scientists agree, but there are still some well-funded deniers out there, and yet the headline is:

Studies: Global warming, climate science far from settled

Go find some people who think the Earth is flat. Then you can write the headline:

Studies: Americans divided on shape of Earth.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "John44 | 12:40 p.m." wow, are you ever a flat earther. Since when is science determined by scientists simply agreeing on something.

In the 1400's, the leading scientists believed the earth was flat. Only a minority believed that it was round. Look at who was correct.

In the 1930's scientists believed that the sound barrier could not be broken, the minority believed it was possible. Again look at who was correct.

If you want to "prove" to us that the science behind global warming is settled, give us the names of some published data that shows that warming exists. I will hold that data to the same standard that all other science publications use. Show us that their data meets the 95% Confidence Interval criteria. I have yet to hear of a global warming study meeting that criteria. The best studies all come short.

Chandler, AZ

@The Rock "2. The hacked email from EAU (East Anglican University) show they were trying to hide the fact that they were distorting the data."
A. It's actually the University of East Anglia. Anglicans are something else entirely
B. No, they don't show anything of the sort. That was the initial media frenzy, but after the media had moved onto something else and the emails were actually looked at they were found to be rather unexciting.

@ desert Pete "When I was in high school in the fifties they told us we were all going to freeze to death."
This idea is due to an article published in Time in 1974 called "Another Ice Age?" and another in Newsweek in 1975 called "The Cooling World." They misrepresented the views of most scientists of the time. Of papers published in scientific peer reviewed journals from 1965 to 1979, 10% thought the earth was cooling wheras 62% thought it was warming.

Ed Darrell
Dallas, Texas

The Rock complains: "1. We can't predict the path of a hurricane 12 hours out so how can we forecast the climate decades out?"

Farmers have been doing that for 5,000 years. It's a key part of civilization. The difficulty, now, is that the climate is changing, rapidly. We have the data that show it. Have you checked the plant zones from USDA lately?

"2. The hacked email from EAU (East Anglican University) show they were trying to hide the fact that they were distorting the data."

Five different investigations contradict your claims. But the "study" that showed errors by scientists claiming warming? That one has been retracted for plagiarism and science error. Don't look through the telescope backwards.

"3. When you look at the treaties that they want us to sign you understand that this is an attach on our freedom."

How is clean air "giving up freedom?" You must be too young to remember smog. No one in your family has asthma? You're lucky.

Chandler, AZ

You picked a poor example to prove your point. In the 1400's, most educated people believed the world was round. Sailors had been observing that fact for centuries, after all. From Wikipedia (quoting a pamphlet from the Members of the Historical Association, 1945):
"The idea that educated men at the time of Columbus believed that the earth was flat, and that this belief was one of the obstacles to be overcome by Columbus before he could get his project sanctioned, remains one of the hardiest errors in teaching."

Ed Darrell
Dallas, Texas

cjb said: [quote]If the evidence were valid. Why the fraud?[end quote]

You were aiming that at the "skeptics," right? The only study retracted, for fraud and plagiarism, the Wegner study, had been those done by those who claim warming isn't real, or we don't need to worry about it.

If science says no warming, why the fraud?


To RedShirt

Your comparisons to the 1400's and 1930's are irrelevant.

Knowledge and technology have advanced exponentially since those times, but if the "exceptional minority/martyr" excuse makes you feel better than go for it.

And I'm not going to do homework for you. Seems you've made up your mind anyway, so what's the point?

Ed Darrell
Dallas, Texas

Demisana, can you show me the studies, done by ice scientists, published in peer reviewed journals, that say ice is increasing overall?

We just finished the warmest decade in history, and this year promises to be a scorcher, world-wide, once again.

Surely you've not been looking at the reports of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, have you? Check it out at NSIDC dot ORG. Ice in the Arctic this year is two standard deviations below the 1980-2000 average. 2007 was the previous worst year -- 2011 is shaping up to be as little ice as 2007, or maybe worse.

Scientists don't get reputations by being stupidly wrong. Check the data for yourself.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "John44 | 1:33 p.m." and "JP | 1:27 p.m." so what you are saying is that you are going to believe a consensus rather than look at what the GW alarmists are saying, and questioning them. It was the consensus during the middle ages that the earth was flat.

If you say that it was irrelevant, why is it irrelevant? It was the leading scientific thought of the time.

If you say it was irrelevant because what they said was based on observation, you are wrong. They had mathematical models predicting the motion of the stars based on a flat earth. There is nothing different between the examples I gave and the current GW alarmists.

Believe what you want, all I know is that each year we see more evidence that the GW alarmists are either making up data or have missed large pieces of the puzzle.

Chandler, AZ

@RedShirt "Believe what you want, all I know is that each year we see more evidence that the GW alarmists are either making up data or have missed large pieces of the puzzle."

If what you see is more evidence that the data is made up, it's partly because you're ignoring any evidence that contradicts you, and partly because the news media gives the issue roughly 50/50 coverage when really the evidence presented in journals is more like 95/5.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "JP | 2:54 p.m." do you know why the evidence posted in the journals is typically from GW Alarmists?

According to the non-alarmists the journals won't accept their papers because the journals are controlled by people who are GW Alarmists. One example is Stanley Goldenberg, NOAA Scientist. In an article titled "NOAA Meteorologist Claims 'Gross, Blatant Censorship' by Media for Speaking Out Against Climate Change Alarmism." He outlines how anything disproving GW is ignored and not reported on.

Clifton Heights, PA

well... if climate change advocates get to cherry pick data, why not the rest of us?

deseret pete
robertson, Wy

@ JP I was in high school in the fifties not the sevsnties so the article referenced wasn't published when I was in high school, so I don't think that was the source of the misinformation being spouted at that time.Nevar the less. all the tax dollars we throw at this climate change is not going to make any signifigant changes in it.

Salt Lake City, UT

Isn't this ironic, "One of these explanations is that Chinas coal use doubled from 2002 to 2007, putting more sulphate aerosol particles into the atmosphere and cooling the earth by reflecting solar energy back into space." In summary, burning coal reduces global warming. Does not quite fit the picture we have been led to believe. Or, at least, I have been led to believe. Interesting for scientific inquiry is why with increased emissions of greenhouse gases, have the targets and projections for global warming provided by the computer models missed so badly. Could it be the models are imperfect?

to comment

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