Comments about ‘Herbert skeptical but concerned’

Hunstman was finally making our state seem like it had entered the 21st century. Now Herbert is making us look like a bunch of ignorant hicks again.

The recent University of Illinois study showed that the vast majority of scientists in this country, and 97% of climate scientists, believe that anthropogenic global climate change is real. So does every major science organization in every developed country in the world -- even the organization for petroleum geologists is now on board.

The only ones who don't believe it any more are fringe groups who use junk science, like the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, who put out bogus petitions filled with phony names, and publish articles authored by non-scientists (including one, oft cited by doubters, authored by a "scientist" that turned out to be a 24-year-old veterinary student).

So Herbert is right, there are two sides to the issue. 97% of climate scientists are on the side opposite him.

Anyone else notice Herbert was missing for the session that discussed the science he claims he wants to see?

Some of the kook scientists have are pretty credible. David Deming, a geology professor at the Univ.y of Oklahoma said "The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980."

James O'Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida St. Univ. said When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it's displacing water," O'Brien said. "When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.
"I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it melt. After the ice melts, the sea level didn't go up in your glass of water. It's called the Archimedes Principle."
He called sea level changes a "major scare tactic used by the global warming people."

I'll take these "kooks" and day.

Some of the kook scientists have are pretty credible. David Deming, a geology professor at the Univ.y of Oklahoma said "The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980."

James O'Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida St. Univ. said When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it's displacing water," O'Brien said. "When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.
"I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it melt. After the ice melts, the sea level didn't go up in your glass of water. It's called the Archimedes Principle."
He called sea level changes a "major scare tactic used by the global warming people."

I'll take these "kooks" and day.

Yeah, I thought that was funny too. The political equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La la la I can't hear you!" when someone's saying something you don't like.

Nathan,

Not only is David Deming a geologist, not a climate scientist, he is also an "adjunct scholar" with the National Centre for Policy Analysis, which has recieved $390,000 from ExxonMobil. His views have been widely panned by climate scientists.

James O'Brien works for three think-tanks that combined have received nearly $1,000,000 from ExxonMobil.

Conservatives are always pulling out this or that individual name, trying to convey the idea that the jury is still out. But scientists like this are in the minority, one that is shrinking by the day. And it's always telling that the people funding their research are the ones most threatened by our transition away from oil.

Governor Herbert. Jeez.

If this guy runs for gov. I will not vote for him. He ignores sound science, even though the consequences for doing so could potentially be catastrophic at worst and unpleasant (ie. more drought) at best. Not to mention that he shows little tact. I am voting for the other guy in the Republican primary.

Then again, there's Dr. Roy Spencer a former NASA climatologist who along with Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama-Huntsville continues to put out very inconvenient satellite data which show the earth's temperature is remaining steady and not increasing. In fact, the data show we are experiencing a slight cooling trend since the late '90s.

Of course critics like Grimble will quickly point out Dr. Spencer's belief in Intelligent Design, as if that invalidated the satellite data.

But as I have noticed during the Global Warming debate, real data is not accepted unless it supports the pre-determined conclusion that humans must give up their cars and air conditioners in order to save Mother Gaia.

Oh, and incidentally Grimble, just 90 years ago a majority of scientists and doctors didn't believe influenza was caused by a virus, either.

Polls indicate that fewer and fewer people are falling for this hoax. Al Gore needs to produce another propaganda movie.

I always rely on the opinions of politicians regarding science--why bother trusting the scientists? Who would know better about global warming than a former president of the Utah Association of Realtors? I totally trust this guy.

I don't want a "simple guy" as our governor. I want an informed Governor. You won't have my vote or any member of my family with your "simple guy" explanation. If I wanted a simple guy, a lot of the non believers in climate change and other "simple" solutions to our economic recovery could be voted in.
Try keeping up the large percentage approval Governor Hunstman has with that attitude and you will be out of a job in 2010!

Is Herbert starting to sound like Bush? Why let facts get in the way of political dogma?

It sounds like our likely next Governor may think the Earth is flat.

Gary, there are scientists that claim global warming does not exist. They are paid by oil companies. Guess what their motivation is? Here's a clue: It's not advancing the scientific understanding of the planet. It is something else.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I want a guy who won't guess, like Obama and Biden do. Guessing costs jobs and massive amounts of money!

If you discount the opinions of scientists funded by oil companies, then you must also discount the ones funded by government grants. If they find that man-made climate change isn't happening their grant money dries up. They have to keep searching for data to support it and keep people scared or they will be out of a job. You can't eliminate the findings of one group of scientists based on their financial motivations without doing the same with the other side. Then only those scientists with nothing to gain by either result can be believed. They must be truly objective. In today's scientific world I tend to believe those who question global warming because they are risking their jobs and credentials when they question it. They may be blackballed by those who have a desired outcome and agenda rather than an objective approach.

It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who dont buy into anthropogenic global warming. - U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.
After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics
to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet. - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs,
who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American
Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of
Monthly Weather Review.
I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about
man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. -
Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at
Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of
Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American
Physical Society, The American

Let's be clear: climates change all over the globe and there are warming and cooling trends but the question is whether man has anything to do with it. The theory of a green house effect for the planet breaks the second law of thermodynamics and the principles of heat transfer. You need to consider the science from the bottom up rather than look at computer models that include dubious data.

Likely, our continued combustion and consumption of carbonaceous fossil fuels will negatively affect humanity's niches over a large portion of the globe. Likely, one's home will not burn down by corrosion of electrical wires in the walls, but homeowner's insurance is a good idea.
This discussion will be pointless in several generations, as we either consume the remaining reserves of coal, petroleum, natural gas and related fossil fuels, or begin diversifying, recognizing that at some point in the future, OUR children, or their children, or theirs will be left out in the literal cold and darkness. I really like my central heat and light switches. Do you want to tell your grandkids what it was like simply flipping a switch for illumination?

Actually, the effects of greenhouse gases have been well documented on other planets as WELL as on planet Earth. Venus, for example, has an average temperature of 860 degrees F, as compared to Mercury, which is closer to the sun and SHOULD be warmer but has an average temperature of 252 degrees F. This is because Venus has an atmosphere, a much THICKER atmosphere, composed mostly of, you guessed it, CO2.

And without greenhouses gases, Earth would be 30 degrees F cooler than it is.