Reader comments
Readers' forum: Global warming is a hoax
152 comments | Read story
Bdog | 1:51 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
Charles, sorry to break this to you, but even though we didn't have as many
days over 100 this summer it was still the 5th warmest summer on record. I
heard one of the channel 5 weather guys say this.
Grimble | 2:28 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
You really start off on the wrong foot by citing that petition with 33,000
scientists. That's the very petition I've been talking about -- the
one that lists Ginger Spice and a PE teacher from Nebraska as
"scientists." The petition is an absolute fraud, and contains the
names of a few dozen experts, at most. Look up the entry on the OISM in
Wikipedia.
The scientists you cite are a who's who of oil-funded scientists -- Idso is one of the famous Idso brothers that made that bogus movie that said global warming is real -- and good for us! It was paid for, of course, by the coal industry.
If you want to believe scientists that are in the vast minority, fine. But don't try to claim that they aren't a tiny minority.
As Dr. James Baker, of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration put it, "There's a better scientific consensus on [the reality of global warming] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics."
Of course, if someone paid Idso enough, he'd probably make a movie disputing Newton too.
The scientists you cite are a who's who of oil-funded scientists -- Idso is one of the famous Idso brothers that made that bogus movie that said global warming is real -- and good for us! It was paid for, of course, by the coal industry.
If you want to believe scientists that are in the vast minority, fine. But don't try to claim that they aren't a tiny minority.
As Dr. James Baker, of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration put it, "There's a better scientific consensus on [the reality of global warming] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics."
Of course, if someone paid Idso enough, he'd probably make a movie disputing Newton too.
Comments continue below
rsb | 2:45 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
Of course liberals are scared of global warming. A lot of them live on the
coasts. When the ice melts and the coasts are gone, the "right"eous
heartland can rule unopposed.
Anonymous | 3:25 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
If Global Warming is a hoax, then it should get complete and absolute support in
Utah, where they thrive on believing in hoaxes!
To What's Amazing | 3:45 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
"Pay the piper?"
What would that be exactly?
Oh, maybe you mean the exorbitant taxes called "carbon credits?" Or maybe it�s the hugely expensive price tag for consumables?
Perhaps if you worshiped the creator, instead of His creation, you would have a better handle on things.
What would that be exactly?
Oh, maybe you mean the exorbitant taxes called "carbon credits?" Or maybe it�s the hugely expensive price tag for consumables?
Perhaps if you worshiped the creator, instead of His creation, you would have a better handle on things.
Grimble | 3:49 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
I'm afraid the rising coastlines won't reach to my house in south Utah
county, so I'll still be around to keep the rightwingers honest.
Grimble | 4:09 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
@ 3:45,
Don't make assumptions. I'd wager I'm just as devout in my religion as you -- we probably go to the same church.
In fact, my religious convictions as a devout Latter-day Saint directly inform my concern for the environment and my desire to correct the falsehoods spread by global warming doubters.
Funny thing is, the strategies of factual distortion and misrepresentation that one encounters in right-wing publications are exactly the same dishonest strategies used by anti-Mormons to misrepresent the church. And often, those types of publications are in the anti-science business AND the anti-Mormon business, ever since the Republicans in the 90s married big business to evangelical Christianity.
Don't make assumptions. I'd wager I'm just as devout in my religion as you -- we probably go to the same church.
In fact, my religious convictions as a devout Latter-day Saint directly inform my concern for the environment and my desire to correct the falsehoods spread by global warming doubters.
Funny thing is, the strategies of factual distortion and misrepresentation that one encounters in right-wing publications are exactly the same dishonest strategies used by anti-Mormons to misrepresent the church. And often, those types of publications are in the anti-science business AND the anti-Mormon business, ever since the Republicans in the 90s married big business to evangelical Christianity.
Freeman | 5:57 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
Grimble,
You are pointing the "big oil" finger at all the scientists who are skeptical about global warming. Where, pray tell, do the peer-reviewed scientists get their money? At least be honest enough with yourself and this forum to admit that funding for research is very, very political by nature. You (should) know that to get a peer-reviewed paper published in a climatology journal, you have to sell your soul to the anthropogenic climate change committee. Otherwise, your paper is rejected, and you soon find yourself without funds for further research. This current atmosphere (pardon the pun) is not conducive to intellectual freedom--there is pretty much only one way to get a climate paper published. How is a young professor supposed to get tenure, published, and more funding for future research? The answer is publish anthropogenic climate change papers. Here's the bottom line: stop misrepresenting peer-reviewed articles as the end-all be-all for scientific truth, especially in the climate change arena. We all know how political it is, even among the climate scientists.
And one more thing--don't try to pretend that factual distortions and misrepresentations are monopolized by the right wing. Everyone does it and everyone knows it.
You are pointing the "big oil" finger at all the scientists who are skeptical about global warming. Where, pray tell, do the peer-reviewed scientists get their money? At least be honest enough with yourself and this forum to admit that funding for research is very, very political by nature. You (should) know that to get a peer-reviewed paper published in a climatology journal, you have to sell your soul to the anthropogenic climate change committee. Otherwise, your paper is rejected, and you soon find yourself without funds for further research. This current atmosphere (pardon the pun) is not conducive to intellectual freedom--there is pretty much only one way to get a climate paper published. How is a young professor supposed to get tenure, published, and more funding for future research? The answer is publish anthropogenic climate change papers. Here's the bottom line: stop misrepresenting peer-reviewed articles as the end-all be-all for scientific truth, especially in the climate change arena. We all know how political it is, even among the climate scientists.
And one more thing--don't try to pretend that factual distortions and misrepresentations are monopolized by the right wing. Everyone does it and everyone knows it.
Grimble | 6:16 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
Yes, Freeman, that's what happens when there's an overwhelming
consensus: scientists stop listening to the moonbats!
I've heard similar complains from my flat-earth scientist friends that, gosh darn-it, just can't get tenure!
I've heard similar complains from my flat-earth scientist friends that, gosh darn-it, just can't get tenure!
Freeman | 6:45 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
Grimble,
Nice non-response. Moonbats? That's your response to intellectual freedom and continued research? Heaven forbid we actually apply the scientific method to our hypotheses and test them with real data, not computer MODELS. In this case, we've all (according to you) agreed that this is the best theory, so everyone else is a moonbat. That's great science--if they don't agree, ostracize them, take their funds, link them to Exxon-Mobil, and call them moonbats. This is science? Sounds more like politics...
Nice non-response. Moonbats? That's your response to intellectual freedom and continued research? Heaven forbid we actually apply the scientific method to our hypotheses and test them with real data, not computer MODELS. In this case, we've all (according to you) agreed that this is the best theory, so everyone else is a moonbat. That's great science--if they don't agree, ostracize them, take their funds, link them to Exxon-Mobil, and call them moonbats. This is science? Sounds more like politics...
Grimble | 7:43 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
Freeman said:
"In this case, we've all (according to you) agreed that this is the best theory, so everyone else is a moonbat. That's great science--if they don't agree, ostracize them, take their funds, link them to Exxon-Mobil, and call them moonbats."
Yes, that's about it. Unless they can provide scientific evidence otherwise that stands up to scientific scrutiny, why shouldn't they be ostracized. And they have UTTERLY FAILED TO DO SO.
You can read a much longer and detailed response by going through the previous 100+ comments. I've already made my case; you missed the first few innings.
I'm all for intellectual freedom. I'm an academic myself. I have the freedom to submit whatever I want to an academic journal. And the editors of that journal have the intellectual freedom to weigh my work on its merits. They also have the intellectual responsibility to reject it if they find it flawed.
If I'm in the widget business but my widgets fall apart, of course investors would decline to invest in my product. That's not "ostracization," that's simply choosing to not dump money into something that doesn't work.
"In this case, we've all (according to you) agreed that this is the best theory, so everyone else is a moonbat. That's great science--if they don't agree, ostracize them, take their funds, link them to Exxon-Mobil, and call them moonbats."
Yes, that's about it. Unless they can provide scientific evidence otherwise that stands up to scientific scrutiny, why shouldn't they be ostracized. And they have UTTERLY FAILED TO DO SO.
You can read a much longer and detailed response by going through the previous 100+ comments. I've already made my case; you missed the first few innings.
I'm all for intellectual freedom. I'm an academic myself. I have the freedom to submit whatever I want to an academic journal. And the editors of that journal have the intellectual freedom to weigh my work on its merits. They also have the intellectual responsibility to reject it if they find it flawed.
If I'm in the widget business but my widgets fall apart, of course investors would decline to invest in my product. That's not "ostracization," that's simply choosing to not dump money into something that doesn't work.
Mike Richards | 9:17 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
As reported by Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post, when writting about
William M. Gray:
"Global warming is a hoax.
He has testified about this to the U.S. Senate. He has written magazine articles, given speeches, done everything he could to get the message out.
"I've been in meteorology over 50 years. I've worked damn hard, and I've been around. My feeling is some of us older guys who've been around have not been asked about this. It's sort of a baby-boomer, yuppie thing."
Gray believes in observations. Direct measurements. Numerical models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.
"Few people know what I know. I've been in the tropics, I've flown in airplanes into storms. I've done studies of convection, cloud clusters and how the moist process works. I don't think anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions better than me."
In just three, five, maybe eight years, he says, the world will begin to cool again."
"Global warming is a hoax.
He has testified about this to the U.S. Senate. He has written magazine articles, given speeches, done everything he could to get the message out.
"I've been in meteorology over 50 years. I've worked damn hard, and I've been around. My feeling is some of us older guys who've been around have not been asked about this. It's sort of a baby-boomer, yuppie thing."
Gray believes in observations. Direct measurements. Numerical models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.
"Few people know what I know. I've been in the tropics, I've flown in airplanes into storms. I've done studies of convection, cloud clusters and how the moist process works. I don't think anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions better than me."
In just three, five, maybe eight years, he says, the world will begin to cool again."
Freeze frame | 9:38 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
There is no global warming happening, but there may be a global freeze.
Freeman | 10:05 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
I have missed nothing. In fact, because I read your earlier comments, I felt
compelled to chime in. You are not the only academic who reads these boards. I
teach an entire block on climate change and climate variability in one of my
college courses--I think I am pretty well versed in ALL sides of the debate. I
am very aware that most climatologists subscribe to the anthropogenic connection
to the current warming trend. In fact, in grad school I studied under a
well-known climatologist who has worked directly with the Mauna Loa Observatory
CO2 measurements since 1986. But I am also aware of some gaping holes in the
research and massive assumptions which bridge the gap between paleoclimatic
evidence, current observations, and predictions for global climatic response.
Moreover, I know exactly how articles are chosen for publication, and all too
often, "scientific scrutiny" amounts to pre-formed opinions. To
expand on your widget analogy, the non-consensus widgets aren't falling
apart--they can't even get to the investors because the distributors are
preventing their release. You should be wise enough to know that when science
seeks a "consensus," it's usually overcompensating for an
uncomfortable gap between theory and observable evidence.
Grimble | 12:06 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008
Mike Richards,
Yes, you've provided one more quote from one of the -- what was it at last count? -- SIX scientists you tracked down that contradict the rest of the science world? Quoting William Gray once again won't make his arguments any more compelling or his science more sound. And of course one would have to give equal billing to people like Peter Webster at Georgia IT who have collaborated with Williams on some research but part ways with him on his global warming research -- not for political reasons, but because they think it's simply not as scientifically rigorous as his respected work on hurricanes.
Wikipedia has a listing of scientists that since 2001 have come out opposing one or more of the IPCC's three main findings. Less than 30 oppose outright the idea of man-made global warming. A few more think the jury is still out. And that list includes scientists in non-climate fields.
Compare that very small number to the number of organization statements, each representing THOUSANDS of member scientists, that specifically use the word "consensus." That includes the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, and U.S. National Academy of Science.
Yes, you've provided one more quote from one of the -- what was it at last count? -- SIX scientists you tracked down that contradict the rest of the science world? Quoting William Gray once again won't make his arguments any more compelling or his science more sound. And of course one would have to give equal billing to people like Peter Webster at Georgia IT who have collaborated with Williams on some research but part ways with him on his global warming research -- not for political reasons, but because they think it's simply not as scientifically rigorous as his respected work on hurricanes.
Wikipedia has a listing of scientists that since 2001 have come out opposing one or more of the IPCC's three main findings. Less than 30 oppose outright the idea of man-made global warming. A few more think the jury is still out. And that list includes scientists in non-climate fields.
Compare that very small number to the number of organization statements, each representing THOUSANDS of member scientists, that specifically use the word "consensus." That includes the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, and U.S. National Academy of Science.
To Grimble | 9:03 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008
Replacing science with counting noses has been a loser since Aristotle. You
know that.
And, you know there is no adequate model to predict the solar forcing effect of any single atmospheric component. Weather is a set of too many complex interactions along too many axes to make any accurate long-term predictions.
And, you know that the Earth has a several-hundred-million-year history of climate that is perfectly adequate for human habitation during which CO2 levels were as much as 30 times current levels.
Why can't you just admit your arguments are political, not scientific? At least, then, we could have an honest debate.
And, you know there is no adequate model to predict the solar forcing effect of any single atmospheric component. Weather is a set of too many complex interactions along too many axes to make any accurate long-term predictions.
And, you know that the Earth has a several-hundred-million-year history of climate that is perfectly adequate for human habitation during which CO2 levels were as much as 30 times current levels.
Why can't you just admit your arguments are political, not scientific? At least, then, we could have an honest debate.
Mike Richards | 9:11 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008
Grimble,
Unfortunately, your name does not appear on the "approved" list of climatologists. Until then, your opinion in these matters has no more weight than that of the science teacher at the local high school, not because you don't understand science, not because you can't read and compare, not because you are unable to do research, not because you have attempted in any way to "fudge" the facts, but ONLY because your name is not on the list.
To be added to the list, you must be nominated by someone on the list. You must not be paid by, or have ever been paid by, any person or company or subsidiary of any company, that has ever opposed any "findings" by any approved climatologist. You must agree to never publish anything that disagrees with any "findings" of any approved climatologist. You must agree that your research has no merit if it differs on any point from the research that has been peer-reviewed by other members of the group. You may only use computer modeling to predict future trends. You MUST show that man has caused global warming.
Good luck, Mr. Grimble, please come back when you are a member.
Unfortunately, your name does not appear on the "approved" list of climatologists. Until then, your opinion in these matters has no more weight than that of the science teacher at the local high school, not because you don't understand science, not because you can't read and compare, not because you are unable to do research, not because you have attempted in any way to "fudge" the facts, but ONLY because your name is not on the list.
To be added to the list, you must be nominated by someone on the list. You must not be paid by, or have ever been paid by, any person or company or subsidiary of any company, that has ever opposed any "findings" by any approved climatologist. You must agree to never publish anything that disagrees with any "findings" of any approved climatologist. You must agree that your research has no merit if it differs on any point from the research that has been peer-reviewed by other members of the group. You may only use computer modeling to predict future trends. You MUST show that man has caused global warming.
Good luck, Mr. Grimble, please come back when you are a member.
RE: Jason | 10:01 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008
So.... are you saying you've lived here 30 years and never seen 100+ degree
weather? Interesting..... Because the Utah Weather Almanac shows 100+ degree
days every single year for the last 60 years. But I'm sure that's just
speculation.
Gary | 12:13 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008
Russell Bender from Nephi -- you know, the geological, climatological expert,
Russell Bender, who lives in the hotbed of scientific expertise on geology,
climatology, and astronomy: Nephi, Utah -- HE says global warming is a hoax, so
it MUST BE SO!
Afterall, Russell Bender from Nephi, Utah is far more intelligent and qualified than Al Gore to speak about such things!
Afterall, Russell Bender from Nephi, Utah is far more intelligent and qualified than Al Gore to speak about such things!
Grimble | 12:57 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008
Mike,
You are helpless to answer any of the counterclaims by scientists that have debunked the pseudo-scientists whose work you cling to so tenaciously, so you go after me personally. I don't care what you say about me. But what do you have to say to the experts I've listed? Apparently, nothing. It's not about what you or I think. It's about who you or I choose to believe. I choose to believe the vast majority of trained scientists. You choose to believe the OISM, Monckton, et al, people who are non-scientists and/or fall far outside the scientific mainstream.
To "To Grimble,":
Why is it that my arguments are political and yours are scientific? Why is it that "mainstream" scientists are somehow all tainted by some secret global warming hoax conspiracy, but the fringe scientists paid by Exxon or the coal industry are somehow immune to political corruption?
And finally, why is it that I can post scientific citations that answer every one of the claims in your recent comment, and you can respond to none of them, and them somehow tell ME I'm making a political argument?
You are helpless to answer any of the counterclaims by scientists that have debunked the pseudo-scientists whose work you cling to so tenaciously, so you go after me personally. I don't care what you say about me. But what do you have to say to the experts I've listed? Apparently, nothing. It's not about what you or I think. It's about who you or I choose to believe. I choose to believe the vast majority of trained scientists. You choose to believe the OISM, Monckton, et al, people who are non-scientists and/or fall far outside the scientific mainstream.
To "To Grimble,":
Why is it that my arguments are political and yours are scientific? Why is it that "mainstream" scientists are somehow all tainted by some secret global warming hoax conspiracy, but the fringe scientists paid by Exxon or the coal industry are somehow immune to political corruption?
And finally, why is it that I can post scientific citations that answer every one of the claims in your recent comment, and you can respond to none of them, and them somehow tell ME I'm making a political argument?
scientific inquiry | 2:32 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008
Read The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975, p. 64) in which scientists
sounded the alarm over dropping temperatures. The conclusion then
�scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere
are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of
introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of
future food supplies. . .� is as apt today.
Scientists may not all agree on what the global climate is going to do next, and they may not be accurate even when they do agree, but at least we know they have the politicians pegged.
Scientists may not all agree on what the global climate is going to do next, and they may not be accurate even when they do agree, but at least we know they have the politicians pegged.
Read | 2:44 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008
Read articles folk. Scientists are quickly backing off the global warming trend.
Fuel is there new baby.
WOOKOWO | 7:35 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008
It snowed in Cedar City in the middle of May. I received an email from a
co-worker the following day, who said that global warming was a hoax because it
had snowed so late in the year.
Actually, the term "global warming" is something of a misnomer. The theory of global warming doesn't necessarily mean that it will get warmer everywhere. It implies that the increase in overall temperatures will result in more extreme weather conditions, and drastic environmental changes. Longer droughts, longer hurricane seasons, the rapidly disappearing arctic ice shelf, and unseasonal weather (such as snow in May) are all evidence supporting the theory of global warming.
Actually, the term "global warming" is something of a misnomer. The theory of global warming doesn't necessarily mean that it will get warmer everywhere. It implies that the increase in overall temperatures will result in more extreme weather conditions, and drastic environmental changes. Longer droughts, longer hurricane seasons, the rapidly disappearing arctic ice shelf, and unseasonal weather (such as snow in May) are all evidence supporting the theory of global warming.
True Conservatives | 12:47 a.m. Aug. 20, 2008
Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation yet we Republicans have let
the Dems take the lead on Civil Rights for 6 decades.
Now we are doing it again on the Environment. Teddy Roosevelt created the National Parks System. Are we going to let the Dems rule on this one too????
Why does it have to be a partisan issue anyway. Just because the opposition supports it, does not automatically mean it is completely wrong.
Think of the 'conservative implications' if we jumped on this: reduce dependence on foreign oil (less money in the pockets of Iran, Venezuela, Russia), investment in our auto manufacturers to best the Japanese, invest in our own clean energy technology base (which our Congress failed to support last week in a key vote)...and better stewardship of God's Green Earth!!!
Or do you prefer the way things are headed???
Now we are doing it again on the Environment. Teddy Roosevelt created the National Parks System. Are we going to let the Dems rule on this one too????
Why does it have to be a partisan issue anyway. Just because the opposition supports it, does not automatically mean it is completely wrong.
Think of the 'conservative implications' if we jumped on this: reduce dependence on foreign oil (less money in the pockets of Iran, Venezuela, Russia), investment in our auto manufacturers to best the Japanese, invest in our own clean energy technology base (which our Congress failed to support last week in a key vote)...and better stewardship of God's Green Earth!!!
Or do you prefer the way things are headed???
To Grimble | 7:51 a.m. Aug. 20, 2008
I never suggested my argument is scientific -- to the contrary, it's
political, as it should be.
Some decisions are way too important to be left to science. What would have happened if the Nation had made expensive commitments of funds based on the "science" of phrenology? Or eugenics? Or cold fusion? Or the "science" behind The Population Bomb -- whose author recently admitted on NPR that he was wrong.
Each of these snake-oil scams had at its base some scientific observation that, over time, was shown to be unsupported or unsupportable.
That's what global climate change "science" is today. Unsupported. Yet it asks that we commit enormous resources to a gaggle of "solution" scams. Parenthetically, many of these "solutions" have turned out to be worse than the problem (eg. corn-based ethanol).
Further, climate change scientist and their affiliated bunko artists (eg. Al Gore) simply ignore the impact of their suggestions, and the fact that too many of these "solutions" are speculative research, providing no benefit in the near term.
Finally, many scientist who apply some rigor to the equations (eg. Viscount Monckton) have realized that the model science wants us to base these decisions on is far from perfect.
Some decisions are way too important to be left to science. What would have happened if the Nation had made expensive commitments of funds based on the "science" of phrenology? Or eugenics? Or cold fusion? Or the "science" behind The Population Bomb -- whose author recently admitted on NPR that he was wrong.
Each of these snake-oil scams had at its base some scientific observation that, over time, was shown to be unsupported or unsupportable.
That's what global climate change "science" is today. Unsupported. Yet it asks that we commit enormous resources to a gaggle of "solution" scams. Parenthetically, many of these "solutions" have turned out to be worse than the problem (eg. corn-based ethanol).
Further, climate change scientist and their affiliated bunko artists (eg. Al Gore) simply ignore the impact of their suggestions, and the fact that too many of these "solutions" are speculative research, providing no benefit in the near term.
Finally, many scientist who apply some rigor to the equations (eg. Viscount Monckton) have realized that the model science wants us to base these decisions on is far from perfect.
Climate Change | 8:23 a.m. Aug. 20, 2008
A lot of people get uncomfortable when talking about things they can do little
(or nothing) about. This is the case with climate changes. So don't call
it "global warming" if that makes you uncomfortable. When people are
asked if they think there has been some "climate change" most people I
talk to will readily agree that it seems to be so. Let's do what we can
about this. Conservation only makes sense and it is about the only thing we can
try. Putting "blinders" on will certainly not help!
Grimble | 8:23 a.m. Aug. 20, 2008
True Conservative,
Thank you for your trenchant comment. You're spot-on. In fact, I suspect my political thinking is probably relatively close to yours on most issues. I even wonder, had the modern conservative movement recognized civil rights and the environment as the moral issues that they are, if I'd be calling myself a conservative right now.
And I guarantee, within a few years this debate will seem extremely quaint, as our economy enjoys a huge expansion from embracing alternative energy and fuel efficiency as economic opportunities.
Thank you for your trenchant comment. You're spot-on. In fact, I suspect my political thinking is probably relatively close to yours on most issues. I even wonder, had the modern conservative movement recognized civil rights and the environment as the moral issues that they are, if I'd be calling myself a conservative right now.
And I guarantee, within a few years this debate will seem extremely quaint, as our economy enjoys a huge expansion from embracing alternative energy and fuel efficiency as economic opportunities.
Greenhouse gases | 10:18 a.m. Aug. 20, 2008
CO2 levels are changing the chemistry of the oceans. Global warming is not the
only concern re greenhouse gases. Pooping in your water supply, poisoning your
air and ignoring the "externalities" are dangerous business as usual.
Spaceship earth needs good housekeeping for our posterity's sake.
Double hoax | 10:20 a.m. Aug. 20, 2008
Global Warming is in the same "Hoax" category as is Charles
Darwin's evolution theories in his "The Origin of Species" book.
Purely speculative and unproven hog wash.
Speculative Hog Wash??? | 11:49 a.m. Aug. 20, 2008
The ignorance displayed by many of these posts is astounding. I amazes me what
people will dedicate their beliefs to (i.e.: the cultural
majority�"hog wash" in its own right), then
believe that pouring diesel smoke into the air doesn't hurt anything.
In response to the comment @ 12:01 p.m: Will the tree huggers get a real religion?
Saving the planet is the most realistic "religion" you could stake your beliefs in. What's more "true" than preserving and protecting our home? Nothing...
Whether Global Warming is a hoax or not (it's not), it's raised awareness to what our actions are doing to the Earth. It's also inspiring many to attempt to reverse the damage that has been done.
In response to the comment @ 12:01 p.m: Will the tree huggers get a real religion?
Saving the planet is the most realistic "religion" you could stake your beliefs in. What's more "true" than preserving and protecting our home? Nothing...
Whether Global Warming is a hoax or not (it's not), it's raised awareness to what our actions are doing to the Earth. It's also inspiring many to attempt to reverse the damage that has been done.
Truth in Most Things | 12:03 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
I have read through all of the back and forth and find it hilarious that Grimble
keeps degrading everyone else�s sources and no one has
pointed out that in multiple posts Grimble is quoting Wikipedia. An encyclopedia
created for idiots by idiots. I know that is a little harsh, but to quote from
Wikipedia when you are telling others to quote from scientific journals that
have been through peer review is at least a little funny.
I see a pattern | 12:08 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
Lets see, ice age in 70's, rain forests and acid rain in the 80's,
Ozone in the 90's, global warming in the 00's.
Funny how the sky keeps falling every decade. Thank you scientist for misleading us for your personal agenda (and the political party you support) for over 30 years.
Funny how the sky keeps falling every decade. Thank you scientist for misleading us for your personal agenda (and the political party you support) for over 30 years.
Obama Republican | 12:52 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
Ok, let just say 99 percent of Peer reviewed studies are wrong and Global
Warming is a Hoax. Is it such a terrible thing to require cleaner burning
Autos, power plants and Factories?
So again making that huge leap of faith that science is wrong. What do we end up with a cleaner sky, Less acid rain, an overall better environment?
It is time to live by KYOTO and lead the world instead of follow. Speaking of Following, where is the money coming from to do all these fancy studies that disprove Global Warming? Follow the Money people, Follow the money, it never ever lies!
So again making that huge leap of faith that science is wrong. What do we end up with a cleaner sky, Less acid rain, an overall better environment?
It is time to live by KYOTO and lead the world instead of follow. Speaking of Following, where is the money coming from to do all these fancy studies that disprove Global Warming? Follow the Money people, Follow the money, it never ever lies!
Double Hoax = Idiot | 2:07 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
Double hoax,
While scientists follow Darwin's ideas and use their knowledge of evolution and DNA to invent cures for cancer and many other diseases, you will continue to bury your head in the "church" sand each week for three hours... until you need the science to save your life.
The theory of evolution (inaugurated by Darwin�s Origin of Species) is the most scientific, well-supported unifying framework in all of science!
I suppose you would also say that Einstein�s E=mc2 is �purely speculative and unproven hogwash,� but a visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or any nuclear power plant will �prove� you wrong! If you prefer, perhaps we can arrange to have one of those �hoax� nuclear bombs dropped on your head and see if that convinces you!
While scientists follow Darwin's ideas and use their knowledge of evolution and DNA to invent cures for cancer and many other diseases, you will continue to bury your head in the "church" sand each week for three hours... until you need the science to save your life.
The theory of evolution (inaugurated by Darwin�s Origin of Species) is the most scientific, well-supported unifying framework in all of science!
I suppose you would also say that Einstein�s E=mc2 is �purely speculative and unproven hogwash,� but a visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or any nuclear power plant will �prove� you wrong! If you prefer, perhaps we can arrange to have one of those �hoax� nuclear bombs dropped on your head and see if that convinces you!
Grimble | 2:35 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
To Truth in Most Things:
Um, just because you found references to the authors I cited in Wikipedia, do you think that means the articles they published in peer-reviewed journals don't exist?
On this thread I've seen people like you and Mike Richards execute incredible feats of argumentative acrobatics in order to distract the audience from the one thing you can't do: respond to the arguments by the scientists I cited.
Your comment is just one more example. I know, it's frustrating to discover that, as Stephen Colbert put it, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
There are indeed two sides to this issue: the right one, and the wrong one.
Double Hoax:
I am honestly unable to tell whether you are being sincere or sarcastic. Only in the comments of the DN opinion page, I guess... Why don't you make it 0 for 3 and throw in the heliocentric solar system in with the hogwash?
Um, just because you found references to the authors I cited in Wikipedia, do you think that means the articles they published in peer-reviewed journals don't exist?
On this thread I've seen people like you and Mike Richards execute incredible feats of argumentative acrobatics in order to distract the audience from the one thing you can't do: respond to the arguments by the scientists I cited.
Your comment is just one more example. I know, it's frustrating to discover that, as Stephen Colbert put it, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
There are indeed two sides to this issue: the right one, and the wrong one.
Double Hoax:
I am honestly unable to tell whether you are being sincere or sarcastic. Only in the comments of the DN opinion page, I guess... Why don't you make it 0 for 3 and throw in the heliocentric solar system in with the hogwash?
Anonymous | 2:49 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
To I see a pattern,
Do you see yet how the "ice age in 70's, rain forests and acid rain in the 80's, Ozone in the 90's, global warming in the 00's" all tie together?
Apparently, you DON'T see the pattern yet. If you did, you would understand that scientists have been warning us about the damage we are doing to our environment for over 30 years!
It's dimwits like you who still don't get it that continue to support actions that continue harming our environment.
When are you going to wake up and get it?
Do you see yet how the "ice age in 70's, rain forests and acid rain in the 80's, Ozone in the 90's, global warming in the 00's" all tie together?
Apparently, you DON'T see the pattern yet. If you did, you would understand that scientists have been warning us about the damage we are doing to our environment for over 30 years!
It's dimwits like you who still don't get it that continue to support actions that continue harming our environment.
When are you going to wake up and get it?
On Scientists | 4:33 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
Why do scientists say that man made global warming is real? Because they are
given funds in the form of grants for doing such. Man must certainly be
responsible for the Ice Age as well. Speaking of which, it was but a few short
years ago that such was also the threat...a return of the Ice Age. Apparently
that didn't trigger a response so the scientists went the other direction
and bam! their pockets are full to overflowing with funding because of potential
taxes against those in non-compliance.
Funny, if Al Gore actually believed in global warmer, you would think that he would act more responsibly about his personal carbon footprints. It seems he doesn't even buy into global warming based on his actions. Yes folks, it simply about money and power and many are still being scammed.
It's all about the money.
Funny, if Al Gore actually believed in global warmer, you would think that he would act more responsibly about his personal carbon footprints. It seems he doesn't even buy into global warming based on his actions. Yes folks, it simply about money and power and many are still being scammed.
It's all about the money.
Really? Duh! | 4:45 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
I'll believe in Big Foot, Santa, Tooth Fairy, The Boogie Man, and the
Chupacabra before I believe in Global Warming......... which ALL scientific data
says isn't true. It would take more than exhaust from cars and farts from
cows to warm up the earth................idiots
Re: Really? Duh! | 6:00 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
Despite what you may think The Planet IS warming up and has been doing so since
the last Ice Age ended some 12,000 years ago. The Planet Earth is subject to
climate cycles that take millions of years to complete, however the issue is
whether or not man's activities are speeding up the process. I for one
beileve that we, as the most intellegent creatures on this planet who have the
greatest potential for self-destruction or self-preservation, should take more
care to limit our effects on the beautiful and wonderfully complex eco-system
that is our home. This is the only refuge we have in the Solar System if care is
not taken we will end up like the people in WALLE except that we have nowhere to
go. The greatest jewel in the known universe, the last outpost of life will be
destroyed out of sheer stupidity. We have made a mess of our home and it stands
to us to clean it up, us or our children! They don't deserve to live in a
world of acid rain terrible storms and incredible drought. Humanity has a
instinct and a real knack for survival but we will all die anyway!
Grimble | 6:35 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
To Really Duh:
Really? ALL scientific date says it isn't true?
Then be a dear and call all those poor hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world that think otherwise, and give them the scoop, would you?
That is, if you're able to drag your knuckles up off the ground to operate a telephone.
I sure appreciate it when such informed people like yourself enlighten the rest of us. And there I was getting worried!
To "On Scientists":
If you follow the money, you have to follow it in both directions. I assure you, Exxon gives more money to doubter-scientists than the Sierra Club does to mainstreamers. And the Bush administration has left a long trail of controversies in which they put political pressure on government scientists to silence or downplay or defund research suggesting global warming.
Really? ALL scientific date says it isn't true?
Then be a dear and call all those poor hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world that think otherwise, and give them the scoop, would you?
That is, if you're able to drag your knuckles up off the ground to operate a telephone.
I sure appreciate it when such informed people like yourself enlighten the rest of us. And there I was getting worried!
To "On Scientists":
If you follow the money, you have to follow it in both directions. I assure you, Exxon gives more money to doubter-scientists than the Sierra Club does to mainstreamers. And the Bush administration has left a long trail of controversies in which they put political pressure on government scientists to silence or downplay or defund research suggesting global warming.
Freeman | 6:54 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
I'm sorry, did someone just bring a Disney-Pixar film into the debate?
Anyway, Grimble, unfortunately for you, the more you type, the more you reveal your angle (which scholars have become so good at trying to hide). You have argued again and again that this is not politics, yet you tell us that reality leans left. Well, your reality might have a left bias, but that's because you are in a profession dominated by liberal groupthink. I know, because as a college professor, I live that reality every day. That's my point: A bunch of peer reviewers who are pre-disposed to lean way to the left decide what gets published and what does not. Not exactly a scientific process. Why is it so hard for you to admit that those of us in the ivory tower have political motivations? In the end, you are not doing a very good job of disguising your bias.
Anyway, Grimble, unfortunately for you, the more you type, the more you reveal your angle (which scholars have become so good at trying to hide). You have argued again and again that this is not politics, yet you tell us that reality leans left. Well, your reality might have a left bias, but that's because you are in a profession dominated by liberal groupthink. I know, because as a college professor, I live that reality every day. That's my point: A bunch of peer reviewers who are pre-disposed to lean way to the left decide what gets published and what does not. Not exactly a scientific process. Why is it so hard for you to admit that those of us in the ivory tower have political motivations? In the end, you are not doing a very good job of disguising your bias.
Mike Richards | 7:05 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
@ 6:00 p.m.,
Did you read somewhere in this thread that those who disagree with the "consensus" opinion that 'man is causing global warming', have an agenda to destroy the planet?
Many of us doubt the the total validity and reliability of reports written by publicly funded scientists who are reviewed by other publicly funded scientists for a project that will single-handedly create more revenue for the Government (in the form of carbon taxes) than any other single tax in history.
Many of us doubt that Albert Gore, Jr. had any pure motives in saving the planet, otherwise he would park his private jet, sell his town-sized mansion, and ride a bicycle when going to his "scientific" meetings. Mr. Gore is simply following in his father's footsteps. (Google Al Gore, Sr. and you'll see what I'm implying.)
Most of us are deeply concerned about keeping our environment healthy and clean; but, being responsible does not require that we swallow, hook, line, and sinker, debatable data from "climatologists" who have received grants from those who benefit most from favorable man-caused global warming "data".
Did you read somewhere in this thread that those who disagree with the "consensus" opinion that 'man is causing global warming', have an agenda to destroy the planet?
Many of us doubt the the total validity and reliability of reports written by publicly funded scientists who are reviewed by other publicly funded scientists for a project that will single-handedly create more revenue for the Government (in the form of carbon taxes) than any other single tax in history.
Many of us doubt that Albert Gore, Jr. had any pure motives in saving the planet, otherwise he would park his private jet, sell his town-sized mansion, and ride a bicycle when going to his "scientific" meetings. Mr. Gore is simply following in his father's footsteps. (Google Al Gore, Sr. and you'll see what I'm implying.)
Most of us are deeply concerned about keeping our environment healthy and clean; but, being responsible does not require that we swallow, hook, line, and sinker, debatable data from "climatologists" who have received grants from those who benefit most from favorable man-caused global warming "data".
Wow anonymous | 7:31 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
You write this: Do you see yet how the "ice age in 70's, rain forests
and acid rain in the 80's, Ozone in the 90's, global warming in the
00's" all tie together?
Apparently, you DON'T see the pattern yet.
How do you see a "pattern" in both global warming and an ice age?
Apparently, you DON'T see the pattern yet.
How do you see a "pattern" in both global warming and an ice age?
Grimble | 8:44 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
Mike Richards,
I find it incredible that you're so convinced that Monckton and the OISM folks, though funded by Exxon and the coal industry and the rightwing media machine, are somehow pure and undefiled by all the money they get and are somehow able to work with complete objectivity even while they are on the payroll of the companies most invested in slowing our transition to fossil fuels. (And moreover, that that science will be any good when it's conducted by non-scientists like Monckton!) And at the same time, you're so convinced that all those university professors, most of them making paltry salaries compared to their training, will immediately sell their soul to the devil for an NSF grant that barely pays for the satellite or lab time they require for their research.
All that, and you still have yet to answer the lists of counter-arguments posed by mainstream scientists to the scientists (and non-scientists) you keep quoting.
I find it incredible that you're so convinced that Monckton and the OISM folks, though funded by Exxon and the coal industry and the rightwing media machine, are somehow pure and undefiled by all the money they get and are somehow able to work with complete objectivity even while they are on the payroll of the companies most invested in slowing our transition to fossil fuels. (And moreover, that that science will be any good when it's conducted by non-scientists like Monckton!) And at the same time, you're so convinced that all those university professors, most of them making paltry salaries compared to their training, will immediately sell their soul to the devil for an NSF grant that barely pays for the satellite or lab time they require for their research.
All that, and you still have yet to answer the lists of counter-arguments posed by mainstream scientists to the scientists (and non-scientists) you keep quoting.
Grimble | 8:53 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
Freeman,
You're talking about two different kinds of "politics" here: academic politics and national politics. In national politics, there has been tremendous pressure within the Bush administration to silence government scientists from NASA and the NOAA who talk about global warming. Same goes for scientists working in private industry. So yes, there's pressure, but it's biased in the opposite direction from the one you're describing.
As for academic politics: you honestly think a university professor working under an NSF grant for research funds or something is somehow more corruptible than a scientists who gets not only his research money, but his entire salary, from Exxon? Seriously?
The doubters need to grow up and face that fact that sometimes they don't get funding from non-industry sources because their science is bad. They should follow the example of people like Ronald Bailey, who was the darling of the far-right when he published his lucrative doubter books in 1990s and early 2000's, but then, facing the overwhelming evidence that proved him wrong, had the good sense to admit he was wrong and tell his former co-doubters to "hang it up."
Incidentally, I've yet to see responses to the lists of counterclaims I've posted.
You're talking about two different kinds of "politics" here: academic politics and national politics. In national politics, there has been tremendous pressure within the Bush administration to silence government scientists from NASA and the NOAA who talk about global warming. Same goes for scientists working in private industry. So yes, there's pressure, but it's biased in the opposite direction from the one you're describing.
As for academic politics: you honestly think a university professor working under an NSF grant for research funds or something is somehow more corruptible than a scientists who gets not only his research money, but his entire salary, from Exxon? Seriously?
The doubters need to grow up and face that fact that sometimes they don't get funding from non-industry sources because their science is bad. They should follow the example of people like Ronald Bailey, who was the darling of the far-right when he published his lucrative doubter books in 1990s and early 2000's, but then, facing the overwhelming evidence that proved him wrong, had the good sense to admit he was wrong and tell his former co-doubters to "hang it up."
Incidentally, I've yet to see responses to the lists of counterclaims I've posted.
submergency | 9:03 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
What I don't understand is that the *conservative* approach to the
possibility of potentially massive changes like global warming should be to
*conserve*. Shouldn't we be working to preserve and protect our
children's heritage? How will we answer when our grandchildren ask us what
we did when the crisis came?
Mike Richards | 9:21 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
Grimble,
Even though you may think otherwise, most of us do not require your approval before we think for ourselves. We do not need your list of approved "climatologists" before reading. We do not need to look at your list of "consensus" club members before deciding whether the material we read has merit. We do not need to agree to your list of "fund" sources before deciding whether the FACTS presented have merit.
Most of all, we do not need to see that you write in broad generalities with little or no data to support your position.
Your "counterclaims", after being reviewed by your peers, have been found to have minimal impact on the subject at hand; therefore, they need no response.
Here's a quote for your enjoyment:
"In The Australian July 18, scientist David Evans � a self-described, former global warming alarmist who previously developed Australia�s carbon accounting model � admitted that evidence is shaky on how carbon affects global warming. In fact, Evans wrote, the current global warming trend actually ended in 2001. He cited ice core data from six previous global warming cycles over the last 500,000 years."
Even though you may think otherwise, most of us do not require your approval before we think for ourselves. We do not need your list of approved "climatologists" before reading. We do not need to look at your list of "consensus" club members before deciding whether the material we read has merit. We do not need to agree to your list of "fund" sources before deciding whether the FACTS presented have merit.
Most of all, we do not need to see that you write in broad generalities with little or no data to support your position.
Your "counterclaims", after being reviewed by your peers, have been found to have minimal impact on the subject at hand; therefore, they need no response.
Here's a quote for your enjoyment:
"In The Australian July 18, scientist David Evans � a self-described, former global warming alarmist who previously developed Australia�s carbon accounting model � admitted that evidence is shaky on how carbon affects global warming. In fact, Evans wrote, the current global warming trend actually ended in 2001. He cited ice core data from six previous global warming cycles over the last 500,000 years."
Freeman | 9:52 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008
Grimble,
Your "two kinds of politics" conclusion is a false dichotomy. The same political forces that shape policy at the national level also permeate academia--the governor of Oregon just asked the state climatologist to step down from his position because of his recent public display of doubt regarding "mainstream" climate science. Sounds pretty unethical to me.
The real problem is that the far-left has a stranglehold on academia and intellectual freedom has been severely limited by groupthink. Your suggestion to "hang it up" goes against the essence of science--we strive constantly to reduce statistical error, eliminate assumptions, and refine data gathering processes. If science had to "hang it up" every time there was a "consensus," we would still be in the Dark Ages.
Just for fun, what exactly is your academic discipline? I'm guessing, based on your Daily Kos-esque take on the peer-reviewed literature, it's not related to climatology.
Also, I've yet to see responses to most of what I've posted. ("Grow up" and "moonbat" don't count). Join the club.
Your "two kinds of politics" conclusion is a false dichotomy. The same political forces that shape policy at the national level also permeate academia--the governor of Oregon just asked the state climatologist to step down from his position because of his recent public display of doubt regarding "mainstream" climate science. Sounds pretty unethical to me.
The real problem is that the far-left has a stranglehold on academia and intellectual freedom has been severely limited by groupthink. Your suggestion to "hang it up" goes against the essence of science--we strive constantly to reduce statistical error, eliminate assumptions, and refine data gathering processes. If science had to "hang it up" every time there was a "consensus," we would still be in the Dark Ages.
Just for fun, what exactly is your academic discipline? I'm guessing, based on your Daily Kos-esque take on the peer-reviewed literature, it's not related to climatology.
Also, I've yet to see responses to most of what I've posted. ("Grow up" and "moonbat" don't count). Join the club.
Charles | 2:59 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008
Yo Bdog...I doubt you are still around but you might want to check your facts or
your hearing.
And compared to the past couple of years...
May 5 degrees cooler than the last 2 years
June 2.5 degrees cooler than the last 2 years
July 2.5 ""
August 1.5 ""
Sorry to burst your bubble but we've had a cooler summer and definitely less 100 degree days.....
for Grimble and mark who like references this information came from the Western Region Climate Center's website....
And compared to the past couple of years...
May 5 degrees cooler than the last 2 years
June 2.5 degrees cooler than the last 2 years
July 2.5 ""
August 1.5 ""
Sorry to burst your bubble but we've had a cooler summer and definitely less 100 degree days.....
for Grimble and mark who like references this information came from the Western Region Climate Center's website....
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- $2M error could mean layoffs 6:29 p.m.
- Stranded hikers rescued 6:24 p.m.
- Payson family loses home in fire 6:10 p.m.
- Teen's turbulent past outlined 6:00 p.m.
- Transactions 5:51 p.m.
- Utah couple dancing toward finale 5:50 p.m.
- 'Go, Dog. Go!' is bright, colorful 5:47 p.m.
- McCoy, Tebow on Heisman list 5:46 p.m.
- Messy Monday commute 5:41 p.m.
- Group sets donor sign-up record 5:40 p.m.
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
277 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing254
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl202
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry190
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- Cougars going back to Vegas141
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage140
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil127
- Letters: Global warming a lie126
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
The BCS is afraid that TCU or Boise State will defeat one of their teams....
If you voted for McCoy after watching the Big 12 Championship game, you need...
"More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no...
Jeers to the first comment, cheers to the second! It is impossible to...
TCU could destroy Texas. TCU destroyed BYU at BYU. BYU beat OK. Texas barely...
Just be happy that the MWC and WAC will share in the "BCS" bowl money. That's...
BEST JOKE OF THE WEEK!!!!! To Carol E | 2:15 p.m. Dec. 7, 2009 Well, she...
Priceless. hahaha. Cause no one wants to go! hahahaha I hope Utah...
I think we all know if there was a "Big Name" program that was still...
You are not telling the whole story. In Pittsburgh you have a myriad of...
Advertisements
tree huggers get a real religion?