Deseret News | Environmental crisis is no time for partisan politics

Reader comments
Joe Cramer, M.D.: Environmental crisis is no time for partisan politics

ChainSawHarry | 1:22 a.m. March 14, 2009

Dr Cramer: You had my interest and curiousity in the first couple of paragraphs, then you went into the muck of "consensus" from which you never seemed to return. Once you were in the muck you then started answering your own questions with what the scientific community refers to as "consensus," not "verifiable scientific facts." It is at this point your logic breaks down and you fail to convince me, and about 38,500 other scientists, who have recently added their names to a list of sceptics/agnostics on the "global warming" issue. All we ask of those on the "consensus" side of the issue(of which it appears you are one)is to show us "verifable data" that can be "peer reviewed" prior to heading down a new policy road which will surely change the way all human flesh on this planet will live. Is that too much to ask? I think not. The stakes are pretty high.

Timj | 4:34 a.m. March 14, 2009

It is pretty silly how Democrats and Republicans line up on issues. And so it's a relief when any one of them bucks the trend--Obama with his education reform plans (merit pay for teachers, pro charter schools that work) and Huntsman with his climate change views.
ChainSawHarry: The peer review has already been done, multiple times. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere, and the earth warms up. We put additional CO2 in the atmosphere when we use gasoline and burn coal.
Look more closely at that list of scientists...how many of them are actually scientists (Science PhDs)? How many of those PhDs actually do climate science? Suddenly that number of scientists looks rather sparse...

liberal larry | 7:09 a.m. March 14, 2009

Excellent editorial. I think that since ronald reagan started the republican demonization of government, it triggered a general trend towards anti intellectualism in the conservative movement. It is typified by the evangelical wing of the party, most of whom, barely believe we have actually been to the moon.
Consensus on global warming is demonstrated by the near total lack of anti global warming studies published in peer reviewed journals. Signed petitions by score of "scientists" mean little or nothing.

Comments continue below

MEB | 7:35 a.m. March 14, 2009

Wow, a Pediatrician who is also a climate expert. I thought only climate experts were allowed to pontificate on climate change!?

The whole Global Warming argument needs to be dumped in the trash bin. It's too controversial, with declining evidence and partisan rhetoric on both sides.

Let's talk about improving the environment, getting off foreign oil, finding creative ways to generate energy, and a host of other worthwhile topics. Most everyone can agree that those are important, and we can quit this stale mate.

This from Newsmax:

"Skepticism about global warming among the American public is growing, with 41 percent of those polled now saying the danger over climate change is exaggerated, according to a Gallup poll. That figure represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.

As recently as 2006, more Americans thought that newspaper and TV reporters underestimated the seriousness of global warming than said it was exaggerated: 38 percent vs. 30 percent. Now, more Americans say the problem is exaggerated rather than underestimated, 41 percent vs. 28 percent."

Dr. Climate Change? | 8:03 a.m. March 14, 2009

Hey Doc: What makes you an expert on climate change? How are you more qualified than the thousands of scientists who think that manmade warming is bunk? It's funny that you rip on talk show hosts as if newspaper columnists were so much superior in their reasoning.

Is the earth warming? Maybe. Guess what? The earth has ALWAYS warmed and cooled since the dawn of time. I don't need a PhD in geology to know that. A volcano can spew in a few minutes more greenhouse gases than all the tailpipes in California ever have. The global warming debate is about control. Liberal politicians want it at the expense of freedom and conservatives resist.

End of partisanship | 8:27 a.m. March 14, 2009

The only way to end partisanship is to end parties, nominal and actual, in both candidates and voters.

The dividing of a nation into two intractable opposing camps will lead to the end of any nation for: A kingdom [or republic] divided against itself cannot stand.

Ironically, while turning the nation against itself, the 'popular' parties both do essentially the same thing, and that is to transfer wealth from the workers to the government and, while they are taking your property, take away your freedom also. What is left of your life?

Behind both of these parties are powerful vested interests pouring in funds in the confident expectation that they will get their investment back many times over.

Roland Kayser | 8:31 a.m. March 14, 2009

Republicans don't like glogal warming because it is not a problem that the free market can solve on its own. In other words, corporations can't make any money off of it. It can only be solved through government action.
To ChainSawHarry: You say you want "peer reviewed data", every scientific climate journal is full of peer reviewed data that support global warming, and virtually none that oppose it. You do need to read to see the evidence though.

@Roland Kayser | 9:04 a.m. March 14, 2009

Heir Kayser, my communinst friend. The govt. is always the answer for you. too bad the same govt. destroys everything it puts its heavy hands on. Like our financial system.
Your comrade leader, Albert Gore is so sure of his climate debate that he won't even argue the merits with opposing scientists. "the debate is over" that way he never has to put up or shut up. How convenient indeed.

falcon's beak | 9:37 a.m. March 14, 2009

I find it hard to believe that greenhouse gases do much in the way of climate change. Perturbations in our orbit and sun spot cycles seem to trump CO2 in my opinion. NASA space thermometers show a cooling trend since 1979. Arctic sea ice is up 270,000 sq miles. There are glaciers in central America, but none in the 1400's. Still I feel that we must go to alternatives and cease importing $700 billion oil each year. I am with the Picken's Plan. Use natural gas as a bridge to the electric car. I say yes to wind, solar, geothermal[and we have a lot of this non polluting energy in Utah]. I consider myself a right wing radical. I liked this article.

rsp | 9:48 a.m. March 14, 2009

Why can't Republicans get on board with the "climate change hoax"..... mmmmmm..... maybe because we're not gullible rubes like so many Democrats. Can't you people see that you're getting played like a cheap fiddle by the hucksters like Al Gore who (not so coincidentally) stand to make fortunes off "cap and trade" by brokering carbon credits. Lenin would have been proud!
BTW - Mr Obama (no tax increases for 95% of Americans)is going to astronomically increase taxes for all Americans on energy use if this cap and trade scam goes through Congress.
And Dr Cramer - I assume it won't hurt the medical profession if we just happen to bring our economy to a standstill in the name of global warming? Always sick people huh?

rsp | 9:55 a.m. March 14, 2009

and one more thing.... if Democrats are so concerned about Global Warming and Clean Air then why not support the cleanest, most efficient power source of all- Nuclear power?? If you can't support Nuclear then I just don't want to hear the whining about "climate change"- it's hypocritical

liberal larry | 10:06 a.m. March 14, 2009

Falcon, would you please list your sources for your information for global warming. According to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the 14 warmest years on record have occurred since 1990. Their graph of the past few decades shows no sign of a cooling trend, it shows a definite warming trend. Where are you getting your information?

Timj | 10:59 a.m. March 14, 2009

rsp:
How is nuclear the cleanest power source?
Many Democrats do support nuclear power, but mainly as a bridge to help ease us from coal/oil to solar/wind.
Of course the cheapest, fastest way to get more available energy is to stop wasting energy we're already getting. Cars with better gas mileage, sealing up our homes to prevent heat from escaping, etc.

Lionheart | 11:00 a.m. March 14, 2009

@Timj: Co2 increase follows global warming, not the reverse.

With global warming projects, humanity has bitten off more than it can chew. WE CAN'T FIX IT! even if it were true. The only solution would be a "Final Solution" which is where all utopian totalitarian dreams end up. Over time, the population will contract and entirely new models of all systems will be incorporated. Global Warming is another chimera used to amass power.

inappropriate | 11:07 a.m. March 14, 2009

Why doesn't the Deseret News run a series of articles about health care by someone with no knowledge or expertise in the area? Dr. Cramer is abusing his credentials and claiming to be an expert about something of which he has no more knowledge than anyone else. I am also a physician with no particular expertise in climate change and yet I believe I know as much about it as Dr. Cramer, but I have come to very different conclusions. He makes passing references to something remotely medical and then pontificates on political topics of his choice. The News should drop this column.

Lonheart | 11:13 a.m. March 14, 2009

@Timj: What are the negatives of the wind and solar models? What does millions of windmills on the wind currents do to the ambiant atmosphere? We know that it kills the birds that have first right of access on the wind rivers. We know that it kills bats by the gross, (overpopulation of insects and insect-borne disease?). What do miles of solar panels do to the earth and the creature thereon? How much potential energy do these weak sources of power deliver? How much does the electrical grid cost to deliver the power from point of generation to population centers? I never hear any legitimate discussion on these factors of so-called renewable energy. Always there are unintended consequences, can't we just have a rational discourse and not a tauting of a political correct agenda?

THE ARROGANT DOCTOR | 11:53 a.m. March 14, 2009

I find the problem with the doctor is he talks down arrogantly condesending with snide remarks to those who would disagree with him. I am so turned off by his style i have to disregard his substance, especially since he has Chaney derangement syndrome

Timj | 11:55 a.m. March 14, 2009

Lonheart/Lionheart:
There are definitely downsides to solar and wind power, which why conservation of energy in the first place is the best alternative.
Still, they are safer and healthier alternatives to coal, oil, and nuclear, despite their negative aspects.
I think the best option for now is to diversify as much as possible. That means cutting down a bit on coal and oil and increasing wind and solar. Solar panels on rooftops to power the buildings they sit on is one way to start. Very low delivery costs, and they do very little to impact the earth and the earth's creatures.
inappropriate: it's in the opinion section, that's why. If you want it from the climate scientists, go to the science section or a science journal (but you'll be disappointed because the message there will be about the same).

Ironic title | 12:52 p.m. March 14, 2009

doctor heal thyself - You did what you warned against. Your liberal views blinds you into thinking life is a set of absolutes as determined by left wing politics and politicians

Anonymous | 1:11 p.m. March 14, 2009

why is it that the allegedly right-wing Deseret News doesn't have a single right-wing local columnist? (other than the house editorial which is generally Conservative)? John Florez, Don Gale, Marjorie whatever her name is, Lois collins etc Is there no one in the Salt Lake Valley that could write a Conservative column?

Lionheart | 1:25 p.m. March 14, 2009

@Timj: I did investigate solar panel at one point for my home. Installing solar panels would have cost approximately $150,000. At $80 a month for electicity delivered in the conventional way, that was not a good investment. Somewhere less than 1%. Also, there is substantial upkeep on solar panels, clearing off snow and debris and making replacement repairs.

Geo-thermal is a great home heating system, using hot water heating in the floors, it is feasible in areas like Hagerman, Idaho, where the hot water is readily available. It appears Midway, Utah is also a good prospect, the hot water system is approximately $20-30,000 more than a conventional gas furnace system. I know people who have done it. It required out-of-pocket investment as it does not add significant value to the appraisal of a home or the resale. These are practical matters. It is all good and well to call for wind/solar, it another to finance and maintain.

Lionheart | 1:34 p.m. March 14, 2009

@Timj: As further discussion, my belief is that the future of energy science is in the study of the primal forces, gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. If we discover how to manipulate these force, an entire new rennaissance in energy will come about, more powerful than the information revolution or the industrial revolution. Although it is apparent that substantial funds are going to be expended in the research of these ancient sciences, wind and solar, I feel the money would be better spent in improving the efficiency of the existing electric grid which loses a great deal of energy, therefore I agree with you that working on the wasted energy problem will produce the most savings.

My View Only | 3:07 p.m. March 14, 2009

Dr. Cramer wants to state there is no controversy here - it's all settled. In other words, if you disagree with him, you are a moron and may as well be killing children - OK, simply dooming them to live on a ruined and condemned planet. What a great American Idea - I'm right and you're wrong and there is no room for discussion because of the "disaster" which is already upon us. Climate is changing and has changed since long before humans were here. It is unsettled whether humans cause change, and if they do, how much of it they cause. Dr. Cramer, as a pediatrician, should watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and learn about the suffering children in Africa who develop easily treatable diseases caused by their countries not having access to reliable sources of power and energy. The drive to not let developing nations develop fossil-fuels and coal powered energy is causing many innocent children to develop respiratory diseases. Climate change activists are directly contributing to disease, misery, and death of millions of children in poor countries. Where is Dr. Cramer's outrage about this?

Bush, Hanks, Cramer | 3:21 p.m. March 14, 2009

George Bush stated that anyone who disagreed with his Iraq war wasn't American (that is - holds un-American views). Tom Hanks states that anyone who supported proposition 8 isn't American. Add Dr. Cramer to the list of people who firmly believe that if you don't agree with him, you're voice doesn't matter and you are indeed ruining our country. Why does he bring up "scientific consensus" when it is clear that his personal views are more important than all others put together? I can't think of a more un-American idea than trying to bully people into taking on your point of view.

If someone wants to earn my respect, let him consider all views and respect those who disagree with him. Arrogance will not win a scientific argument. It's great to have an opinion, but let me have mine. We live in a Republic, based on democratic principles. Debate is healthy. Don't try and stifle it. Give us you're opinion but don't put the rest of us down as "drinking different water" because we haven't bought on to the biggest hoax of all time.

Timj | 3:34 p.m. March 14, 2009

It may be worth looking into solar panels again. I believe they've become more effective the last couple of years. Of course, they still cost a lot of money to install.

b,h,c great post | 4:05 p.m. March 14, 2009

dead on

I wish to bear my testimony | 5:08 p.m. March 14, 2009

There is no air pollution. There is no global warming. And there is no end to the lies and falsehoods that science and scientists have fed us. Follow the Church, follow the Prophet, and follow the Lord. Keep the Lord's commandments and He shall keep you. Ask and thou shall receive. As someone at BYU told me, when oil runs out, the Lord will create more out of His infinite love and mercy for us. As I was told by my friends, when mercury and acid rain fall from the skies the Lord will make our bodies immune to the poisons, for we are His beloved, eternal children. As I sit by my child's bedside, hearing her labored breathing, short gasps of air, and watch her face turn slightly blue from the asthma and air pollution, I *know* that the Lord and the Savior will provide for her well in the next life. Brethren, have faith and trust in the teachings of our Lord and the teachings of the Prophet, and you cannot help but be blessed with untold riches and promise in this life and the life hereafter. So I testify to you. Amen.

jfs | 5:46 p.m. March 14, 2009

pbs just played a documentary about the red desett of Wyoming, They found palm fronds, crocodiles and the like. They said it was a tropical climate. So why is global warming bad? What is the correct tempature? If you can't answer it don't make policies of bogus taxes for things that don't matter. Oh and don't use the extintion bit. It didn't save the crocodiles in Wyoming.

Two Cents | 6:30 p.m. March 14, 2009

CO2 has never driven climate in the past.

Climate is much more complex than being portrayed by alarmists--it isn't a simple response to greenhouse gases.

What warming? Outside of the Arctic, few places have warmed more than a few tenths of a degree in a century.

Skeptics of global warming span the political spectrum, and many are scientists themselves.

End the drivel.

Do not take your children | 7:48 p.m. March 14, 2009

To a Doctor who thinks his opinion is the last word and looks down on those who would question it, a very poor bedside manor. I could not even think about using Dr C as he would ask you if you were just listening to talk shows if you questioned why he wanted to do a certain course of treatment.
Be afraid, be very afraid of any Doctors like Dr c

Jeff Chivers | 1:20 a.m. March 15, 2009

I found your opening point particularly interesting; the fact that those in opposition to the notion of man-caused global warming are also those generally also opposed to abortion on demand, gay & lesbian marriage etc. while those going along with the man-caused global warming notion are generally in favor of the overall liberal agenda.

Contrary to your intimation, those of us on the "right" are not bucking the man-caused global warming propaganda because we are merely going along with our political constituents, but because we tend to study the issues and seek to understand the motives of those promoting a particular cause or course of action. When one really studies the science of this issue, there is much contrary evidence; which evidence is generally ignored by those worshipping at the throne of King Obama, Prince Al Gore and the like; whose worshipers include those of the mainstream media.

The man-caused global warming sham with its over-regulation, costly cap & trade and all that is attached to this agenda is nothing more than an opportunistic political/monetarily motivated scheme being championed by those standing to benefit thereby.

Re: Jeff Chivers | 5:15 a.m. March 15, 2009

The "global warming is bunk" camp includes a lot of big industrial polluters, who stand to lose a lot of money if they have to actually control emissions. That camp also includes the political party that backs those industrial polluters, the Republican party.

We need to move beyond the question of "who will benefit financially" from one policy or another. Whichever policy is adopted, some will find a way to profit from it while others may very well suffer financial setbacks. A much more important question is whether current practices are rendering our environment less hospitable to human life, and if so, what measures should be taken to change this.

Global Warming might | 10:08 a.m. March 15, 2009

cost money to fix, and we might have to collectively change some of our gluttonous behaviors.

Therefore I won't even acknowledge it as a problem.

onetermO | 11:23 a.m. March 15, 2009

The impending drastic change of our environment /climate is debatable. The impending collapse of Medicare/Social Security is not. We should be able to drop Partisan positions and address these problems (think that will happen? not if the most powerful lobby in the land -the AARP- has anything to say about it).

AnnieB | 3:20 p.m. March 17, 2009

Here's my answer to your question, good doctor. Just like many of the laypeople out there, my sole source of information on global warming has been from the popular media: newspapers, television, Hollywood, etc. I don't mistrust good, solid science...but I *do* mistrust the media. Until this type of reporting is fair, accurate, and does not swing drastically toward the left, I take this type of "science" with a grain of salt. I know that scientific research can be manipulated to show just about anything, and how much science has reversed itself in the last 20-30 years? Take, for example, the hype about the hole in the ozone layer...why don't we hear about that anymore? Could it be that the "science" on it was wrong?

Spencer In SOJO | 1:35 p.m. April 24, 2009

RE:AnnieB and Testimony.

you don't hear about the hole in the ozone layer because policies were put into place more than 15 years ago to reduce/eliminate the use of chemicals (CFC's). Because of the elimination of these products from everything from spray paint to caned whipping cream, we don't have to hear about the hole in ozone layer any more.

I don't know that the scientific data is 100% correct either, but we are too dependent on fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels pollutes. Fossil fuel IS finite and GOD will not magically provide if we abuse what HE has already endowed us with.

Would you park your car in the garage and inhale the fumes? Logic says that isn't a good idea. Multiply your car by several billion, logic says that isn't a good idea either.

Just a guy | 10:45 a.m. May 21, 2009

Global warming aside- Although not a climate expert, the doctor knows that when you perform an autopsy on a person who lived in a major city, the lungs look like those of a smoker, even if they never touched a cigarette. The free market can fix the problem, but it is going to take a change in public opinion about what we are doing to ourselves by pumping poisonous gases into our environment. Try to distance yourselves from party lines and think about the consequences of driving your Ford F950.

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.