Deseret News | Y. scientists take issue with climate comments

Reader comments
Y. scientists take issue with climate comments

Page:
1
2
Next >

Vote for Pedro | 3:28 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Its about time. Now why don't these same BYU scientists also weigh in on evolution and the lack of archaeological evidence for, and dna evidence against the Book of Mormon?

Truth | 3:31 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Does Herrod really think we should trust him over 18 Ph.D.'s? What a joke. What he fails to realize is that no single study could ever address all of the issues related to any complex question. When all of the research is taken together, consensus emerges, and it is not on Herrod's side to say the least.

Of course, we should not really expect Herrod to understand how science works. 18 Ph.D.'s on the other hand..........well decide for yourself. Either be blinded by ideology (a la Herrod) or open your mind to the truth.

Bomar | 3:38 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I am ashamed as an alumnus of BYU that their are faculty that give such short shrift to Roy Spencer. He is eminently qualified and has less of an agenda than many global warming advocates. I suggest these faculty and any other doubters to get the DVD "Not Evil, Just Wrong".

Comments continue below

Zac | 3:39 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Where can I find a list of the scientists who signed this letter?

Columbia University Scientist | 3:47 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

To "Vote For Pedro"

They have. They have shown that the DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon is based on faulty assumptions and is generally inconclusive.

HERB ALEXANDER | 3:50 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

THATS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN POLITITIONS THINK THEY ARE BETTER SCIENTISTS THE THE SCIENTISTS.

RE: Truth | 3:31 p.m | 3:53 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

So far the 18 scientists have given no proof nor offered any proof, just bloviating, making personal attackd against another person.

IF 18 scientists truly have information to offer they should offer it.

otherwise they are just blowing hot air like any person, regardless of any degree they have.

never underestimate peer pressure.

Troy | 3:56 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

the problem is not the science. All we hear about are the scientist saying this or that. The questions is not do humans have an impact the questions is what do you do about it? Do you kill the economies of half the world to reduce carbon immesions. Do you move to nuclear power? or what? It is easy to stand and yell that there is a problem but what we really need are resonable solutions. What ever we do we should fear the incompetence of Washington way more than the the temperature.

Dr. B. | 4:06 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

There are thousands of Ph.D.'s who don't even consider the possibility of a God, who think that we were created from a really big explosion, who think that it's obvious that we descend from apes and who are of the opinion that the notion of a life after this one is ridiculous. Is that the kind of truth that we should buy into hook, line and sinker just because they have Ph.D.'s? These 18 professors may be right this time. It is also possible that they are misguided. As someone who actually holds a Ph.D., I suggest to you that are many otherwise brilliant scholars who are nevertheless "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Ned N | 4:07 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I vote for Pedro also. Evolution is also believed correct by many scientists. The fact that Mars has also warmed up in the last 100 years or so must prove that there is man on/in that planet causing that to warm.

BYU Geology Alum | 4:10 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I am proud of these faculty members for taking a tremendous risk by speaking out against the Utah legislature. I find it ironic that those that deny the facts related to global warming accuse scientists of being politically motivated while maintaining that their motives are not political. As someone who works and associates with Earth Scientists on daily basis (and knows these BYU professors personally), I can tell you that very few of these scientists are motivated by a desire to spread and political ideology.

Missing the point | 4:28 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Most of the points above are missing the point. These 18 are upset that the legislature gave an otherwise distinguished individual an opportunity to express his opinion which I am sure he delivered with as much supporting evidence as the 18 did to oppose. They want to take away this man's right to expression or at least marginalize it. Shameful.

Dr. B gave a very relevant point that should be considered also.

JP | 4:29 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I'm always leary when scientists give too much credit to man and underestimate the abilities of mother nature. It's moments like this I know that God has a sense of humor.

No consensus | 4:34 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I agree. Who are the PhDs? Psychologists? And where are the studies that show consensus. It kinda makes a difference. After all, it is science. I don't have a PhD (yet) but I can tell you I have dug into it (scientifically) and there isn't consensus, and the problem is way over our heads as far as understanding what is happening in our atmosphere. We just don't know yet! Anyone that claims consensus is wrong. That is the whole reason the catch phrase is now "climate change" instead of "global warming." We couldn't agree with "global warming." People that can't back up their position usually just point to "consensus."

Also, more and more people don't believe that man is the source of global warming. Consensus is moving in the other direction. If you are a scientist and you disagree with this movement, show the studies and it will catch on.

Paul | 4:50 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

These and most professors receive grant money from the government and they often make there studies conside with whoever will give them money.

Eternal Student | 4:50 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I heard somewhere that President David O. McKay believed in the Theory of Evolution. Here's the deal. If you believe in God, and you believe He is all powerful...then you must realize that He is the Greatest Scientist and the Greatest Artist and from Him, all things come.
On that Final Day at Judgement, if He tells me, little old nothing me, that He created these Universes with a Big Bang, or a Little Bang, or exactly the way it tells us in Genesis; then, I'm prepared to believe Him.
We are put here not knowing anything, so we can question, exam, and wonder. Fighting about it doesn't prove anybody's point. These things, we have to take on Faith. What things? The things we learn from Him as we learn, and question, and ask.

We humans are silly...thinking we know everything.

SooooSad | 4:53 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

How can there be such a concentration of ignorance in one state? Turn off your AM radios, people, and get your information from legitimate sources.

Summer??? | 4:58 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

"Summer Rupper, a BYU climate scientist" - what a name for a Global Warming Scientist, oh wait it is now Climate Change Expert. Amazing. Does anyone know the definition of "Expert"? Probably not.

"X" is the unknown quantity
"Spert" is a drip under pressure
Thus - an expert is an unknown drip under pressure.

I'm just saying

To Eternal Student | 5:50 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I don't know if David O. McKay believed in evolution or not, but Joseph F. Smith certainly did.

The Hypothesis | 7:20 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

There is no question that global warming (and cooling) does occur, which does have a direct effect upon climate change — it can be measured. However, the real question is how much effect upon global warming is directly related to CO2 emissions generated by mankind. This is the hypothesis that needs to be demonstrated to be true via provided conclusive scientific evidence.

Supposedly, 94% of the scientific community has reached a "consensus" that man-made emissions are a major contributor to global warming. I am sorry, but consensus is not scientific evidence. So far, no one has been willing to provide me references to this evidence. For me, it needs to be evidence — not consensus or opinion. Until this scientifically demonstrated evidence is provided, I will remain a skeptic.

No Political Agenda? | 7:37 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Who do these BYU scientist think they are? How dare they try and tell an elected body who to take testimony from and how much weight to give the various testimonies given? Why don't they either testify themselves, or SHUT UP and run for office themselves. Don't like democracy? Think that you know what is best for all of us and we are too stupid to listen to you? Well politically, that is what the Bolsheviks thought. And spiritually, that is what Satan and his followers thought.

To Summer??? | 7:42 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Are you intimating that there are a lot of "Xspert" comments showing up on this forum?

Liberal Bias | 9:39 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I am tired of the liberal media pushing the liberal agenda by publishing these stories. These scientists are the liberal academic elitists who are waging war against Chistianity in this country.

Huh | 9:51 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

BYU scientists are the liberal academic elite?

You're joking right.

Kevin in the Terrace | 9:57 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

It it not "consensus" among the scientists that matter. What matters is the overwhelming evidence from sound science across a broad spectrum of disiplines that show climate change that is caused by humans. Consensus developes after these scientists see peer reviewed publication after publication that point to human caused global warming. I have said this before and I will probably say it again, we should not allow politics to inform science, rather science should inform politics regardless of party affiliation. It is this point that I think the BYU scientists were making.

Really? | 9:59 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Why not present the evidence that man is causing climate change. If it is CO2 emissions then present the evidence that it is. I'm so tired of statements of consensus from scientists that is devoid of evidence, something that scientists should be presenting first and foremost.

If scientists are right, why the need to to change the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Wasn't it the consensus that humans were causing global warming? Oh wait, except for the part where the earth has been cooling for like the past 11 years. I guess it's not political at all then that they changed the name to climate change. Who do you think will benefit from climate change? Look up Al Gore and cap and trade and you'll find out its him and others. He and others are set to earn millions off of cap and trade. And that will be at the expense of you and I.

gdog3 | 10:39 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Who cares about this issue. Whoever is right, partially right, politically motivated, or whatever else, may or may not control or influence everything or anything. That sentence makes no sense and either does the effort and money poured into one side (any side) of the debate. Should we treat the earth better? ABSOLUTELY! Will we? NO! Are we more likely to abide if given a man made global warning theory? Maybe. Is man responsible? I say yes, but it's more about our overall state (mental, physical, and spiritual) and how that effects earth, mother earth, God, whatever. But no one will agree on this role (if any) that man plays because it's all party politics. How many people out there are subjective about being objective. Party politics are so undefineable on this issue, at least from a cure standpoint, that we can all obsess about how much water we use, chemicals we incorporate, and cars we drive, as to only exhaust our own reasoning on the issue. You know, let my party decide, let my church decide ect... I say do what your heart tells you is right and turn away from church, party, science, and politics.

Spoc | 10:43 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

It is important to remember that consensus does not mean universal agreement. It means going along to get along.

For Marxists, consensus is a highly ideological concept used to perpetuate class rule by attempting to disguise the extent of conflict within society.

"Consensus is what many people say in chorus but do not believe as individuals." - Abba Eban

"Talk about the flag or drugs or crime and follow the yellow brick road to the wonderful land of consensus. In place of honest argument the politicians substitute a lullaby for frightened children: the pretense that conflict doesn't really exist, that we have achieved the blessed state in which we no longer need politics." - Lewis H. Lapham

"A consensus politician is someone who does something that he doesn't believe is right because it keeps people quiet when he does it." - John Major

"It is not much matter which we say, but mind, we must all say the same." - Lord Melbourne

"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects." - Margaret Thatcher

More Ice | 10:50 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The ice pack has been increacing over the past three years. When Pres. Monson starts telling us to have fewer children that the earth has reached capacity for supporting life, etc. Then I will start to worry more about the here after than Global change always wonder why it went from global warming to global change. how much is Gore pay these scientists with all the money he is reaping and will reap with cap and trade.

Where's the Evidence | 12:44 a.m. Nov. 8, 2009

Kevin in the Terrace | 9:57p

You stated "What matters is the overwhelming evidence from sound science across a broad spectrum of disiplines that show climate change that is caused by humans."

Could you please tell me where I can find documented sources about this "...overwhelming evidence from sound science across a broad spectrum...?"

You need to prove the hypothesis to me that man is the significant contributer to global warming.

thank you | 8:43 a.m. Nov. 8, 2009

Scientists at the Y. You have fulfilled a moral duty: telling the truth to power. As Pogo said, we have met the enemy, and it is us.

UU science prof | 9:52 a.m. Nov. 8, 2009

The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has jumped 40% in the past 200 years. There are so many methods that have been used to determine that and they all agree. There is no precedent for such a spike in natural geological history. That is a bigger change than the change in atmospheric pressure between sea level and the top of Everest. To anyone who knows the extraordinary nature and impact of these facts, arguments by those who don't that deny them are just absurd and sad, because that huge a shift in a greenhouse gas is probably make the earth uninhabitable. Most geologists I know are motivated by deep concern for the future of their children, and sadly watch as the ignorant and superstitious masses, fearful of inevitable change, try to protect the status quo.

Does man affect... | 10:45 a.m. Nov. 8, 2009

We affect the overall climate no more than we affect any of the following. To claim that we do is patently absurd.

Solar activity
Earth's magnetic field
Tides
Tectonic plate movement
Earth's rotation, revolution, wobble, angle of tilt to the sun, etc.
Height of Mt. Everest

Everything in the atmosphere came from the earth and is quickly washed back to the earth, leaving the atmosphere clean and refreshed. Earth always cleans herself up very well.

There's no need to tax us or our businesses so that others can get rich off of us on the pretense of controlling the overall climate. What a farce.

Kevin in the Terrace | 10:46 a.m. Nov. 8, 2009

Re Where's the evidence

Try the peer reviewed publications in Science, Nature, Ecology, etc. In fact do a google scholar search on subjects such as green house gases, CO2 cycles, Ice Cores, global warming, climate modeling, ecological effects global warming or climate change and you will find thousands of peer reviewed scientific reports showing evidence from chemistry, physics, climatology, Astronomy, ecology, and paleontology that support that climate change is happening and that it is human caused. To continue to claim that all or even a majority of these scientists are making it all up for some political agenda is absurd. These scientist's reputations are on the line with every publication therefore they have motivation to be scientifically sound. It is these scientists job to provide sound science and allow the politicians to make decisions. Recently a few politicians with money in their pockets from the fossil fuels lobby has started questioning the claims and have gotten many people to question the science. Who are you going to believe?

Rockman | 10:46 a.m. Nov. 8, 2009

How do the 18 BYU scientists respond to the MIT scientist that has shown FACTUAL data (Actual vs. forecast) showing that Actual occurrence is OPPOSITE the 11 PROJECTED ?

"Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for."

This comes from an article dated Aug.18,2009. The graphs are more revealing!

There is truth out there for those that are earnestly seeking. How is it that the motives of these 18 BYU are above suspicion?

What is the motive for "climate change" people?

Another problem I continue to have is that when scientists use the word CONSENSUS, that is a political term usually, and just means that the outcome is still not factual, just that a certain group agree.

I for one will believe the ACTUAL findings as opposed to the theories and models!

It's land mass... | 10:55 a.m. Nov. 8, 2009

There's too much land mass and too little ocean in the eastern hemisphere compared to the western hemisphere. It causes a weird rotation of the earth. We need a tax to compensate.

Also, There are too many people in Asia (China, India, etc.). They are contributing to this weird rotation. They should be taxed so that those of us in the western hemisphere can have social justice.

Their is scientific consensus on both points - more land and more population in the Eastern hemisphere. No more arguing. Just impose a tax so that this atrocity comes to an end before the world comes to an end. If only there was just one government for the whole world all these wrongs would be righted and we would have peace everywhere. Yeah, right.

Eternal Student | 11:03 a.m. Nov. 8, 2009

Hey, how could God exist before the big bang if nothing existed before that supposed event?

Go read your scriptures and current priesthood manual. We and matter/elements have always existed in one state or another.

Please put more faith in God and his teachings than in suppositions of man about things he cannot see or measure. Facts about the creation will get settled in due time.

Earth | 12:41 p.m. Nov. 8, 2009

How is taxing going to help. Is the agenda to stop manufacturing, which leads to lowering the standard of living for humans? Do environmentalists care? Or, are they like the guy on Planet Green, or whatever the show is called, last night who said the earth would be better off without humans and that some day we'll all just disappear. What a nut job. If he's representative of environmentalists, I want nothing to do with them.

I believe in scripture that says to REPLENISH THE EARTH AND SUBDUE IT. (Moses 2:28). It was made for us - to give us a place to stay during our mortal sojourn. Her elements and resources are to be used wisely for our benefit. Without us, the earth doesn't have purpose. I'm glad it's here for me and plan on taking care of her and using her resources for our benefit. I think she's fulfilled by doing so, if I may say so in those terms.

Yes, I agree that pollution is a bad thing and that we should clean up as much as possible. But, it should be done wisely, in beneficial ways for mankind.

@JP | 1:22 p.m. Nov. 8, 2009

"I'm always leary when scientists give too much credit to man and underestimate the abilities of mother nature. It's moments like this I know that God has a sense of humor."

I'm always amazed how some casual belief in nonsense that JP asserts above makes people dismiss an entire line of research and science in an issue.

Of course man is destroying his enviornment -- haven't you heard about the nuclear testing from the 1950s that destoyed entire islands in the South Pacific and caused radiation among people in southern Utah? Mother nature didn't do that! Haven't you heard that man is destroying the rain forests that is disrupting rain fall and the ability of the earth to purify air? No mother nature didn't do that! Haven't you heard that man's use of water in the West is draining our acquafirs due to overpopulation? No mother nature didn't do that! Poor air quality in SL Valley is also due to man!

To assert that man is limited in his ability to destroy natural systems of the earth is a denial of daily reality. To underestimate man's abilities is simply dangerous.

Pagan | 1:58 p.m. Nov. 8, 2009

Oh look! Here is ONE person who says climate change is baloney! Let's ONLY listen to him!

These other 1,853,267 people who say it's real, we'll just ignore them.

Utah lawmakers only hear what they want to hear.

Don't vote for them. They do not support you.

MormonDem | 3:07 p.m. Nov. 8, 2009

It's too bad that the DN didn't print the actual letter these scientists sent to the legislature, because it summarizes quite clearly the state of research on the topic and gives clear examples of how Roy Spencer's position peddles junk science and represents a tiny minority fringe. They also refer to the University of Illinois study from a few months ago (easily Googleable, for all you doubters) that found that 90% of scientists, and 97% of climate scientists, agree on the reality of climate change.

It also made it clear that the BYU scientists came from across the political spectrum. In fact, one of the signers is a GOP delegate. The BYU scientists also disagree on what policies should be enacted to address climate change. But they all agree that the policy debate should be based on real science, not on the junk science of guys like Roy Spencer.

I'm a Democrat and | 3:12 p.m. Nov. 8, 2009

I personally think global warming is a bunch of bunk. If it is getting warmer is that such a bad thing with longer gorwing seasons, warmer oceans (more rain cloud formation and hence more rain)> Last I heard from a climatological historical perspective we are in a warm period of a small ice age (there was ice and glaciers covering much of there area here and in much of North America 10,000 years ago folks). I say bring on the warm, it's too cold here in the winter as is; sorry skiers.

Sensible Scientist | 4:30 p.m. Nov. 8, 2009

Climate scientists hurt their own credibility when they dismiss or downplay the valid positions of opponents.

MormonDem | 5:17 p.m. Nov. 8, 2009

Sensible Scientist | 4:30 p.m. said:

"Climate scientists hurt their own credibility when they dismiss or downplay the valid positions of opponents."

Not nearly as much as Republicans hurt their credibility by trotting out the invalidated positions of quacks in support of their policies. Which is exactly what's going on here.

Where's The Evidence (2) | 8:54 p.m. Nov. 8, 2009

Re: Kevin in the Terrace | 10:46am

You want me to "...Try the peer reviewed publications in Science, Nature, Ecology, etc." In the rest of your post, you are flock-shooting, with not one specific reference to an article in a scientific journal to back up your position.

Once again, I will reiterate: Where is the evidence?
If you don't have it (specifically referenced), then don't bother responding.

Re: UU science prof | 9:52am

I think I will start to follow your reference as a "point of departure". At least you had more meaningful data to pursue (40% increase over the past 200 years). But the question still in my mind is, how much of it is caused by mankind? Do we know that to be true (man-caused) with with validated evidence?

True | 9:52 p.m. Nov. 8, 2009

Priestcraft and Sciencecraft operate on a pay for preaching basis. The climate kooks pay over $5 billion to scientist to grant them a biased study. These last 10 years have been cold and getting colder. Time to pay the Sciencecraft brokers for another myth.

Climate Change | 9:56 p.m. Nov. 8, 2009

does not exist....only the weather changes...and Obama...

BYU Engineering Grad | 10:59 p.m. Nov. 8, 2009

Sorry guys. Science is not performed by consensus. That's how politics works.

True science hypothesizes a theory, designs and executes and experiment, and analyzes the data to either prove or disprove the theory.

I have yet to see any experiment that has truly followed the scientific method to validate the theory of human-caused climate change. Until then, I will remain sceptical while recognizing that interpretation of data (i.e. opinions) without experimentation gives us nothing more than "science by consensus" which is not science at all, but politics.

Anonymous | 7:22 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Earth goes through warming-cooling cycles. Lately, it has cooled. That led to the Al Goreites to now call it "Climate Change." What is difficult to understand is how going green in the U.S. is going to change any of this? China's and India's emissions far offset anything we can do in reducing CO2 emissions in America.

You don't believe that? Just watch Southern California and see if the LA smog - or even Salt Lake City's horrendous winter smog during the inversions - abates next winter because of the U.S. going green. As we freeze this winter because of "necessarily escalating" prices of fossil fuels, let us remember that this is really not about science or global warming, it has to do with growing government. It doesn't take science to understand that. We're playing into the hands of Rahm Emanuel and Barak Obama who actively look for opportunities like this to invoke their socialistic/communistic command economy upon all of us. A more important debate should be the falling value of the dollar because of irresponsible spending,the out-of-control spending of the Obama Administration, and resulting super-inflation. Don White

Jinx | 8:15 a.m. Nov. 9, 2009

Just goes to show that even at BYU the educators go along with liberal consensus.
Mindless Sheep!

Page:
1
2
Next >

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.