Reader comments
Readers' forum: Will wrong on warming
63 comments | Read story
J | 12:50 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Thank you for the facts, Mr. Jarvis, and I agree with you about George Will.
John C. | 2:10 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I find this ranting very interesting. Do I believe in global worming? Yes I
think it’s a distinct possibility. But I’m not convinced of the
cause. Earths history has shown that it has gone through several fazes of
warming and cooling, long before scientist say man arrived on the scene. I was
fascinated a couple of months ago when I was watching a PBS documentary about
paleontologist digging up a large amount of dinosaur fossils on the north shores
of Alaska. Imagine that… They determined that the earths climate was so
warm back then that dinosaurs could roam clear up there. Now I’m left to
wonder… Where are those dinosaurs cars and factories that produced all
that CO2 to cause the global worming back then? Isn’t history fun…
yep | 5:35 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
and y2k will end civilization
Comments continue below
Patsy | 5:47 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Seth, well stated. Good job.
Wow | 5:53 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Thank you for leaving no doubt that the climate does change...
Amazing! The climate changes! Glory be!
Amazing! The climate changes! Glory be!
sorry seth | 6:46 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
You are wrong... Time will prove Will right.
Dixie Dan | 7:07 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
If you listen to Rush and Fox News, Global warming doesn't exist. Ergo,
many Republicans follow what these "experts" report to them regardless
of the facts.
wallofvoodoo | 7:12 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
It doesn't matter (for all of you about to post that there isn't any
evidence) if there is evidence or not. Why play Russian Roulette with the
environment?
KM | 7:45 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Its all one big hoax brought to you by the marxists that want to take over the
world. Even if global warming was real, we could do nothing about it. Thats my
scientific opinion.
@ John C. | 7:45 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Yes, during the dinosaur age, there were significantly more volcanos and the
earth was much warmer. Since then, the earth's volcanic activity has
subsided creating the climate that is more suitable to modern man. What
scientists worry about now is that man-made CO2 generation from buring fossil
fuels is increasing CO2 levels beyond what modern humans have ever experienced
before. It is a great, perhaps unintended, experiment that our children and
grandchildren will learn of its consequences.
Change is bad?? | 7:54 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I am sick of global warming fanatics who try to scare everyone into believing
that if global temperatures rise a few more degrees over the next 100 years that
automatically spells complete destruction of the human race.
When the climate changes (notice I said WHEN not IF because history has shown us that nothing is constant), we will adapt. Some places on Earth will become less hospitable, others will become more hospitable.
Who knows, 100 years from now the most populous regions of the world may be Canada and Russia, each with vast regions of land that are currently too cold to inhabit.
When the climate changes (notice I said WHEN not IF because history has shown us that nothing is constant), we will adapt. Some places on Earth will become less hospitable, others will become more hospitable.
Who knows, 100 years from now the most populous regions of the world may be Canada and Russia, each with vast regions of land that are currently too cold to inhabit.
Seth, dear | 7:59 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Perhaps you are so young, you haven't been exposed to all the hysterical
gloom and doom that the media has foisted on the population over the years.
They didn't even know that there are black holes in the center of all
galaxies. Now that's spooky! The cosmos is a very dangerous place, and
global warming is hardly something to get your panties in a knot over. And yes,
I do remember the silly global cooling spook stories the media spread. When the
end comes it will be like a thief in the night, and it comes for all us. Stop
scaring yourself, there is nothing we can do about these forces of nature. Are
you planning on eliminating 5 billion people? If man causes global warming,
that is the only real solution.
MLB | 8:06 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
The scientific consensus used to be that bleeding people to release the ill
humors in their body was the correct way to treat most illnesses.
Looking over the course of history, scientific consensus has established as fact many ridiculous theories.
The Earth warms and cools and has since the dawn of time. Man has little to do with it. I'll keep recycling and conserving energy because I try to take care of the Earth and like saving money. But the current scientific consensus and our politicians willingness to buy ("buy" being the best words since people like Al Gore stand to make billions from cap and trade legislation)means, in the words of our current president, "that energy costs would necessarily skyrocket."
Anybody up for that right now?
Looking over the course of history, scientific consensus has established as fact many ridiculous theories.
The Earth warms and cools and has since the dawn of time. Man has little to do with it. I'll keep recycling and conserving energy because I try to take care of the Earth and like saving money. But the current scientific consensus and our politicians willingness to buy ("buy" being the best words since people like Al Gore stand to make billions from cap and trade legislation)means, in the words of our current president, "that energy costs would necessarily skyrocket."
Anybody up for that right now?
RedShirt | 8:33 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
To those that believe that global warming is due entirely to CO2, I have these 2
simple questions that have yet to be answered by the alarmists:
1. What should the temperature of the earth be?
2. How do you know what the temperature should be?
1. What should the temperature of the earth be?
2. How do you know what the temperature should be?
Bro Chuck's Rant's n Rave's | 9:01 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Sorry Seth Jarvis of Salt Lake City Utah, you don't know squat. You ONLY
think you do. Global warming doe exist, perhaps it's TIME you to learn of
its consequences, that's caused by 5 major food companies, world wide,
watch the DVD titled "Food, Inc.", and watch what they are doing to
our planet, bringing us to a major meltdown, and a crash. And for kickbacks,
perks and votes, it's our politicians willingness to buy into them, for
greed and power, and corruption. On both sides of the fense.
Chilly | 9:02 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Warmer temperatures would be a boon for the earth. Utah could use a 2 or 3
degree bump. Let's hope we're warming and not cooling.
Pepper | 9:15 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Obviously Seth has been reading revisionist history. He also must be too young
to have lived through the global cooling scare of the 70's. Seth, the
global cooling warnings were just as prolific then as GW warnings are now. Back
then the idiots wanted to spread coal dust on the Arctic to melt it. Today the
idiots want to spread dust in the atmosphere to "shade" us. Seth, IT
IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL & TAXES, NOT THE ENVIRONMENT! Remember the CFC and
ozone hole scare? Guess what? The hole is still there and we haven't used
CFC's for 30 years! The hole was always there and will always be. Study up
on ozone creation and you will know why. Why does GE push the GW hoax? They
think they can make money, probably from the gov't (read: our taxes). As
MLB posted here quoting the Obamanation "that energy costs would
necessarily skyrocket." BTW, how's that hope & change thingy
working out for ya?
Peer reviewed publications? | 9:30 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
What are those???
We don't need those wacky scientists to tell us that increased CO2 and other carbon burning byproducts in the atmosphere causes greater climatic variability!
We have Rush and Glenn, who REALLY know the truth. Keep your science to yourself.
We don't need those wacky scientists to tell us that increased CO2 and other carbon burning byproducts in the atmosphere causes greater climatic variability!
We have Rush and Glenn, who REALLY know the truth. Keep your science to yourself.
Brian | 9:34 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
"Since 1979, the volume of research published in professional science
journals on the subject of climate change has been overwhelming and consistent
in establishing that global warming is happening rapidly and is
human-caused."
I am a scientist and my research is loosely connected to global weather patterns. I am not an expert on climate, so I won't claim to be. However, I recently attended a conference on global weather patterns with some of the greatest minds on the subject. I have a number of AMS magazines sitting on my desk. If I could make one claim, it is this:
There is NO overwhelming or consistent consensus on what the scientists believe about global warming, and even fewer agree as to the cause of climate change or future consequences. The greatest minds and most modern technology still return inconclusive results.
You are free to read any of my journal articles if you wish.
My suggestion: don't be wasteful, be wary of political agendas, (from either side) and don't let anyone tell you that scientists are unanimous on a certain subject, because they're not.
I am a scientist and my research is loosely connected to global weather patterns. I am not an expert on climate, so I won't claim to be. However, I recently attended a conference on global weather patterns with some of the greatest minds on the subject. I have a number of AMS magazines sitting on my desk. If I could make one claim, it is this:
There is NO overwhelming or consistent consensus on what the scientists believe about global warming, and even fewer agree as to the cause of climate change or future consequences. The greatest minds and most modern technology still return inconclusive results.
You are free to read any of my journal articles if you wish.
My suggestion: don't be wasteful, be wary of political agendas, (from either side) and don't let anyone tell you that scientists are unanimous on a certain subject, because they're not.
Oh Seth....... | 9:47 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Seth dear 7:59, Too bad you can't dismiss Seth's misguided viewpoint
as due to his youth. Although much older than anyone you could call youthful,
age doesn't seem to have increased wisdom in this case. As planetarium
director, he should know better how to distinguish true science from politics.
@RedShirt | 9:50 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Are you suggesting that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has no effect on
global temperatures? Can you show me your equations that refute the physics
behind the heat retention of CO2? It has been proven that CO2 retains heat in
our atmosphere, it is a greenhouse gas. It is also a proven fact that the CO2
concentration in our atmosphere has increased from 284 ppm in 1832 to the
current concentration of 390 ppm.
Face it, the science is against you. 97.4% of climate scientists are in agreement that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to the problem.
The question is not "what should the temperature of the earth be?" The question is "how much impact should humans have on the earth's temperature?" We already know that there are natural variations in temperature, but the science overwhelming shows that we are having a large impact on the temperature.
And do yourself a favor and look up Svante Arrhenius.
Face it, the science is against you. 97.4% of climate scientists are in agreement that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to the problem.
The question is not "what should the temperature of the earth be?" The question is "how much impact should humans have on the earth's temperature?" We already know that there are natural variations in temperature, but the science overwhelming shows that we are having a large impact on the temperature.
And do yourself a favor and look up Svante Arrhenius.
Brother Chuck Schroeder | 9:53 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
RE: RedShirt @ 8:33 am.
You better believe there's global warming out there, watch the movie FOOD, Inc., exposing the comfortable relationships between business and government, Kenner gradually shines light on the dark underbelly of the American food industry. The USDA and FDA are supposed to protect the public, so why is it that both government regulatory agencies have been complicit in allowing corporations to put profit ahead of consumer health, the American farmer, worker safety, and even the environment? As chicken breasts get bigger and tomatoes are genetically engineered not to go bad, 73,000 Americans fall ill from powerful new strains of E. coli every year, obesity levels are skyrocketing, and adult diabetes has reached epidemic proportions. Perhaps if the general public knew how corporations use exploited laws and subsidies to create powerful monopolies, the outrage would be enough to make us think more carefully about the food we put into our bodies. It talks about global warming in the DVD as well. Your wrong again.
You better believe there's global warming out there, watch the movie FOOD, Inc., exposing the comfortable relationships between business and government, Kenner gradually shines light on the dark underbelly of the American food industry. The USDA and FDA are supposed to protect the public, so why is it that both government regulatory agencies have been complicit in allowing corporations to put profit ahead of consumer health, the American farmer, worker safety, and even the environment? As chicken breasts get bigger and tomatoes are genetically engineered not to go bad, 73,000 Americans fall ill from powerful new strains of E. coli every year, obesity levels are skyrocketing, and adult diabetes has reached epidemic proportions. Perhaps if the general public knew how corporations use exploited laws and subsidies to create powerful monopolies, the outrage would be enough to make us think more carefully about the food we put into our bodies. It talks about global warming in the DVD as well. Your wrong again.
Stewardship | 9:57 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Lol, RedShirt thinks that when he gives an accounting of his stewardship over
the earth at the Judgment the Lord will reward him for using up as much of the
earth's natural resources as possible. I can see it now, "Did you
dump enough pollution into the atmosphere to reach your quota? Did you rape the
earth for all the resources you could take? No? I'm sorry, no Celestial
Kingdom for you."
I'll go with actuals, thank you. | 10:00 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
There is now confirmed data of the actual temps and co2 compiled by an MIT
scientist that show exactly opposite of what the "consensus" of
scientists agree from models that have been used to promote their UN agenda.
@Chilly | 9:02 a.m. | 10:01 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Warmer temperatures would be disastrous for Utah. We already struggle to get
enough of a snowpack to supply our water needs. An additional 2-3 degrees would
mean less precipitation as snowfall and an earlier thaw. The end result, even
smaller snowpacks and aggravated water shortages. In case you haven't
noticed, we live in a desert. Increasing the temperature is not going to help
our precipitation situation.
Anonymous | 10:03 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Uh, some of us were around when global cooling was all the rage. We don't
need to know how many journals were published to know what was being sold to the
people at every media outlet.
Warm spell | 10:04 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Wow, last week was abnormally warm. Global warming must be real.
Isn't it funny how the global warming deniers will always point to a recent cold spell and say "it's cold, therefore global warming isn't happening." But you'll never hear them do the opposite.
Isn't it funny how the global warming deniers will always point to a recent cold spell and say "it's cold, therefore global warming isn't happening." But you'll never hear them do the opposite.
MormonDem | 10:06 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
J'ever notice how when science disagrees with Republicans, rather than try
to find science that backs up their side, they attack the entire enterprise of
science? When they propose bad ideas, and people dislike them, they insist
it's not because they're bad ideas, but because of the "liberal
media"?
That's the Republican strategy. If reality disagrees with you, attack the premise of reality.
Republicans are epistemological terrorists.
That's the Republican strategy. If reality disagrees with you, attack the premise of reality.
Republicans are epistemological terrorists.
RedShirt | 11:17 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
To "@RedShirt | 9:50 a.m. " and "Brother Chuck Schroeder | 9:53
a.m." did I say that global warming does not exist?
I only asked the questions:
"1. What should the temperature of the earth be?
2. How do you know what the temperature should be?"
So, we may be warming up, but are we warming up to what the earth should be, or have we pased the ideal temperature of the earth?
For example, if you lived during the midievil mini-ice age, would you say that the current temperatures of the earth are too warm?
Also, if you lived during the Medieval Warm Period (which was warmer than today) would you say that the earth is just warming up to what it should be?
I only asked the questions:
"1. What should the temperature of the earth be?
2. How do you know what the temperature should be?"
So, we may be warming up, but are we warming up to what the earth should be, or have we pased the ideal temperature of the earth?
For example, if you lived during the midievil mini-ice age, would you say that the current temperatures of the earth are too warm?
Also, if you lived during the Medieval Warm Period (which was warmer than today) would you say that the earth is just warming up to what it should be?
Brother Chuck Schroeder | 11:19 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
RE: MormonDem 10:06 am
It's really Democrat's that are epistemological terrorists. You have your THINKING CAP on backwards again.
Let YOUR Icon leader know......
Given their present state, US companies simply cannot make enough money selling small automobiles to survive. Thus, if the government were to order new mileage standards, such policies would force automakers to spend billions of dollars in new research and new production lines, with near-zero or even negative financial returns. While people may declare the automakers to be obstructionists, in reality new changes in fleet mileage requirements would place firms like GM in even worse positions than they are at the present time. (Right now, GM's bonds are enjoying junk ratings.)
Thus, we would see real malinvestment of resources in order to "save" fuel. At the present time, consumers, should they so choose, can purchase automobiles that are extremely fuel-efficient, so there is no need for the government to mandate what could be bankruptcy for auto companies just to make some editor from the New York Times happy.
It's really Democrat's that are epistemological terrorists. You have your THINKING CAP on backwards again.
Let YOUR Icon leader know......
Given their present state, US companies simply cannot make enough money selling small automobiles to survive. Thus, if the government were to order new mileage standards, such policies would force automakers to spend billions of dollars in new research and new production lines, with near-zero or even negative financial returns. While people may declare the automakers to be obstructionists, in reality new changes in fleet mileage requirements would place firms like GM in even worse positions than they are at the present time. (Right now, GM's bonds are enjoying junk ratings.)
Thus, we would see real malinvestment of resources in order to "save" fuel. At the present time, consumers, should they so choose, can purchase automobiles that are extremely fuel-efficient, so there is no need for the government to mandate what could be bankruptcy for auto companies just to make some editor from the New York Times happy.
@ MormonDem 10:06 | 11:25 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
J'ever notice how when logic, principles, and good ol' common sense
disagrees with liberals/progressives, rather than try think or search for truth
they ignore it and say "well, that's the way it should be"!
Case in point:
"There is now confirmed data of the actual temps and co2 compiled by an MIT scientist that show exactly opposite of what the "consensus" of scientists agree from models that have been used to promote their UN agenda."
and you said what?
Case in point:
"There is now confirmed data of the actual temps and co2 compiled by an MIT scientist that show exactly opposite of what the "consensus" of scientists agree from models that have been used to promote their UN agenda."
and you said what?
Thinkin' Man | 11:27 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I have a photograph of a display in the Smithsonian museum of natural history,
made in the early 1980's and still on display in 2006, that says that
scientists are concerned about global cooling of recent decades.
Yes, climate scientists were talking about cooling in the 1970's as anybody in school then can attest.
Yes, climate scientists were talking about cooling in the 1970's as anybody in school then can attest.
MormonDem | 11:31 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Gateway Pundit Highlights Democrats FARCing Problem
The Democrats have another terrorist problem, not only are they having relationship problems with Al Qaeda now they are having to explain their links with Colombia's FARC group.
It appears the laptop that Colombian forces captured in their raid that killed the senior FARC commander in Ecuador is just full of documents linking FARC to our very own Democratic party. Check out Gateway Pundit: Captured FARC Documents Link Democrats to Terror Group:
What Colombian investigators found on the FARC terror leader's computer:
-- FARC connections with Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa
-- Records of $300 million offerings from Hugo Chavez
-- Thank you notes from Hugo Chavez dating back to 1992
-- Uranium purchasing records
-- Admit to killing the sister of former President Cesar Gaviria
-- Admit to planting a 2003 car bomb killing 36 at a Bogota upper crust club
-- Directions on how to make a Dirty Bomb
-- Letter to Libya's Moammar Gadhafi asking for cash to buy surface-to-air missiles
-- Meetings with "gringos" about Barack Obama
-- Information on Russian illegal arms dealer Viktor Bout who was later captured
-- FARC funding Correa's campaign
-- Cuban links to FARC
...And, more.
The Democrats have another terrorist problem, not only are they having relationship problems with Al Qaeda now they are having to explain their links with Colombia's FARC group.
It appears the laptop that Colombian forces captured in their raid that killed the senior FARC commander in Ecuador is just full of documents linking FARC to our very own Democratic party. Check out Gateway Pundit: Captured FARC Documents Link Democrats to Terror Group:
What Colombian investigators found on the FARC terror leader's computer:
-- FARC connections with Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa
-- Records of $300 million offerings from Hugo Chavez
-- Thank you notes from Hugo Chavez dating back to 1992
-- Uranium purchasing records
-- Admit to killing the sister of former President Cesar Gaviria
-- Admit to planting a 2003 car bomb killing 36 at a Bogota upper crust club
-- Directions on how to make a Dirty Bomb
-- Letter to Libya's Moammar Gadhafi asking for cash to buy surface-to-air missiles
-- Meetings with "gringos" about Barack Obama
-- Information on Russian illegal arms dealer Viktor Bout who was later captured
-- FARC funding Correa's campaign
-- Cuban links to FARC
...And, more.
Sensible Scientist | 11:51 a.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Consistent with other anthropogenic warming proponents, the letter writer
overstates the state of consensus on the issue. Well-known and respected
climatologists have valid arguments that cast significant doubt on the idea. To
discount the dissenters would be to repeat the classic mistakes of science in
the past (plate tectonics comes to mind).
Grover | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I've got it! I have the answer to this debate once and for all...George
Will vs. Al Gore mano e mano in a two hour televised debate. It has been really
dull since the Presidential election with nary a debate in sight. Reality
programing...how about having it broadcast by satellite from the deck of an
aircraft carrier sailing though formerly frozen waterways near the north pole. A
few polar bears thrown in would add to the emotional wallop. Now here is the
best part...the judges would be chosed from the judge panels on American Idol,
So you Think you Can Dance, Dancing With the Stars and the Harvard Debate Team.
Loser has to swim back to land with the bears and voila! The debate is settled!
Chilly | 12:07 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
"Warmer temperatures would be disastrous for Utah. We already struggle to
get enough of a snowpack to supply our water needs."
Not really, we just need to capture the water before it goes in to the GSL. Think Willard Bay South.
Crank up the heat please. It's way too cold hereabouts.
Not really, we just need to capture the water before it goes in to the GSL. Think Willard Bay South.
Crank up the heat please. It's way too cold hereabouts.
To Warm spell | 12:07 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Warm spell wrote: "Isn't it funny how the global warming deniers will
always point to a recent cold spell and say "it's cold, therefore
global warming isn't happening." But you'll never hear them do
the opposite."
I can't tell you how many times I have heard the GW supporters point to any recent natural disaster, heat wave, or wet/dry spell and loudly proclaim "Here is your proof of global warming."
A few years ago when we had several hurricanes in one year the GW crowd was out in droves saying GW was the cause and we are to expect more and more hurricanes in the near future. If we have several years of almost no hurricanes, they never acknowledge it.
I can't tell you how many times I have heard the GW supporters point to any recent natural disaster, heat wave, or wet/dry spell and loudly proclaim "Here is your proof of global warming."
A few years ago when we had several hurricanes in one year the GW crowd was out in droves saying GW was the cause and we are to expect more and more hurricanes in the near future. If we have several years of almost no hurricanes, they never acknowledge it.
Dear Denialists, | 12:39 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
In terms of global temperatures, the hottest 11 years on record have occurred in
the past 13 years. (ScienceDaily, December 13, 2007). That’s a plain
fact.
It's one thing to claim that climate scientists were worried about global cooling in the 70's, but as the letter pointed out, that claim is not supported by the facts.
Are you guys saying the survey of scientific research revealing growing concern among climate scientists about warming in the 60’s and 70’s was wrong? Where is there any credible support for that belief?
What should be the “ideal” temperature for Earth? That’s a dumb question - completely irrelevant to the issue of global warming. What is relevant is how quickly human activities are changing the global average temperature and what will be the consequences of this rapid change.
No one says Earth’s climate doesn’t change. What scientists are saying is that this particular climate change is not natural and is happening far faster than many species are going to be able to adapt.
It's one thing to claim that climate scientists were worried about global cooling in the 70's, but as the letter pointed out, that claim is not supported by the facts.
Are you guys saying the survey of scientific research revealing growing concern among climate scientists about warming in the 60’s and 70’s was wrong? Where is there any credible support for that belief?
What should be the “ideal” temperature for Earth? That’s a dumb question - completely irrelevant to the issue of global warming. What is relevant is how quickly human activities are changing the global average temperature and what will be the consequences of this rapid change.
No one says Earth’s climate doesn’t change. What scientists are saying is that this particular climate change is not natural and is happening far faster than many species are going to be able to adapt.
Cindy | 1:56 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
We do not say that there is no warming trend. That saying is getting really
old. What we are saying is that man (ie. carbon dioxide) is the cause. How
many of you that say it is all man's fault remember the Vikings in
Greenland? When they went there, the climate was warm enough for them to grow
crops and raise cattle. After a few hundred years, they climate changed and got
a lot colder. There crops failed and their cattle started dying. What happened?
They wnt there during the Medieval Optimum, a time much warmer then than it is
now. It was warmer in Europe and North America. Google it. Then came the Little
Ice Age. That's why the Vikings left Greenland. The Little Ice Age affected
North America and Europe and probably affected the rest of the world. Europeans
had to change the crops they grew because of the lower temps. Our president
wants us to go back to pre-industrial temps. The only problem with that is, we
just started coming out of the LIA. Because of Volcano's, there were some
years with no summers. MO weather caused no harmful effects in Europe/NA.
RedShirt | 2:52 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
To "Dear Denialists, | 12:39 p.m. " but, in 2006, the NOAA released a
news brief saying that 1936 was the hottest on record. How could that have been
possible, the CO2 levels were not so high.
Actually the arguement for what the ideal temperature is very relevant. What if we are in something similar to "The Little Ice Age" and we are warming up to the Earth's ideal temperature. Why would we want to halt that warming?
Actually the arguement for what the ideal temperature is very relevant. What if we are in something similar to "The Little Ice Age" and we are warming up to the Earth's ideal temperature. Why would we want to halt that warming?
Human Conceit | 3:01 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Warm, cold, tepid, nothing you can do about it anyway. Short of eliminating 5
billion humans, if they are the cause. Most fanatical movements find their way
to this "final solution". Then it is a big fight over who needs to
go. Global warming movement is garbage. In two decades there will be other
nonsense movements, all coming to the same conclusion, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING.
Oh the conceit.
Schroeder backer | 3:05 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I agree with Bro Chuck that Global warming does exist, perhaps it's TIME
you all need to learn of its consequences, that's caused by 5 major food
companies, world wide, watch the DVD titled "Food, Inc.", and watch
what they are doing to our planet, bringing us to a major meltdown, and a crash.
And for kickbacks, perks and votes, it's our politicians willingness to buy
into them, for greed and power, and corruption. On both sides of the fense.
@Cindy | 3:11 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
"Our president wants us to go back to pre-industrial temps."
This is absolutely not true. No one is even suggesting that it's possible to "go back" to pre-industrial temps. The proposals are to cut our greenhouse gas emissions back to levels that don't significantly contribute to global warming.
This is absolutely not true. No one is even suggesting that it's possible to "go back" to pre-industrial temps. The proposals are to cut our greenhouse gas emissions back to levels that don't significantly contribute to global warming.
@RedShirt | 3:23 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
So you are conceding that CO2 contributes to global warming? And that humans
have significantly altered the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Therefore, you apparently agree that global warming is at least partially caused
by human activity.
Again, your question of "What should the temperature of the earth be?" is nothing more than a red herring. The better question to ask is "to what extent should we allow human behavior to affect global temperatures?"
We already know that there is no "perfect" temperature for the earth. Temperatures have fluctuated for eons. Under natural conditions, the fluctuations are slow enough that plants and animals have time to adapt and/or migrate. The current rate of change is too rapid for them to adapt and the evidence is overwhelming that humans are contributing to it.
How about this question:
Is it morally acceptable to drive arctic (or any) wildlife to extinction in order to satiate our lust for fossil fuels?
Again, your question of "What should the temperature of the earth be?" is nothing more than a red herring. The better question to ask is "to what extent should we allow human behavior to affect global temperatures?"
We already know that there is no "perfect" temperature for the earth. Temperatures have fluctuated for eons. Under natural conditions, the fluctuations are slow enough that plants and animals have time to adapt and/or migrate. The current rate of change is too rapid for them to adapt and the evidence is overwhelming that humans are contributing to it.
How about this question:
Is it morally acceptable to drive arctic (or any) wildlife to extinction in order to satiate our lust for fossil fuels?
Frank | 3:25 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Seth,
Please don't present facts to conservatives. It is an absolute waste of time.
Please don't present facts to conservatives. It is an absolute waste of time.
@ Human Conceit | 3:50 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
If global warming is actually "garbage," then you must disagree with
at least one of the following:
1. CO2 absorbs solar radiation, trapping the heat in our atmosphere.
2. Over the past 800,000 years, ice core data shows unambiguously that CO2 has varied from 180 ppm to the pre-industrial level of ~280ppm.
3. CO2 levels have increased from 284 ppm in 1832 to the current concentration of 390 ppm.
4. This increase in CO2 concentration coincides precisely with the massive burning of fossil fuels that began in the industrial revolution, with no increases in other CO2 sources.
Which do you disagree with?
I have yet to hear anyone advocate reducing the population. The solutions being advocated are reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and moving toward cleaner, renewable energy sources.
1. CO2 absorbs solar radiation, trapping the heat in our atmosphere.
2. Over the past 800,000 years, ice core data shows unambiguously that CO2 has varied from 180 ppm to the pre-industrial level of ~280ppm.
3. CO2 levels have increased from 284 ppm in 1832 to the current concentration of 390 ppm.
4. This increase in CO2 concentration coincides precisely with the massive burning of fossil fuels that began in the industrial revolution, with no increases in other CO2 sources.
Which do you disagree with?
I have yet to hear anyone advocate reducing the population. The solutions being advocated are reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and moving toward cleaner, renewable energy sources.
@RedShirt | 3:58 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
If you really don't understand the difference between one anomalously hot
year and a decades-long warming trend, then you have absolutely no business
debating global warming.
@RedShirt | 4:08 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
OK, I looked up your press release from NOAA. You claim that NOAA stated
"1936 was the hottest on record."
Verdict: Your claim is FALSE.
Here is the actual test of that release:
"Summer 2006 was the second warmest June-to-August period in the continental U.S. since records began in 1895.... This was the second warmest SUMMER on record, slightly cooler than the record of 74.7 degrees F set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl era." (emphasis added)
NOAA's statement was that the June-August period of 1936 was the hottest such period on record for the continental US ONLY. We're discussing global average temperatures, for which 2005 was the hottest year on record. Looks like you need to find a new talking point.
Verdict: Your claim is FALSE.
Here is the actual test of that release:
"Summer 2006 was the second warmest June-to-August period in the continental U.S. since records began in 1895.... This was the second warmest SUMMER on record, slightly cooler than the record of 74.7 degrees F set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl era." (emphasis added)
NOAA's statement was that the June-August period of 1936 was the hottest such period on record for the continental US ONLY. We're discussing global average temperatures, for which 2005 was the hottest year on record. Looks like you need to find a new talking point.
Anonymous | 5:27 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
The earth's climate has changed throughout history. Climate change,
especially in a short time, is detrimental to the life on earth.
One of the commenters said we will adapt. Maybe but a sudden (ie 100 years) will cause upheaval in our society. People who live in affected areas aren't going to just die. They will go to somewhere livable, maybe here.
One of the commenters said we will adapt. Maybe but a sudden (ie 100 years) will cause upheaval in our society. People who live in affected areas aren't going to just die. They will go to somewhere livable, maybe here.
the truth | 6:00 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
While CO2 may have increased,
there is NO provable causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature.
and there ti;s effect are neglible at best.
if we do all we can do and spend all we can spend to reduce CO2
and only change the temperature by a few tenths of a degree,
then MANS influence MUST BE NEGLIBLE.
this is really all about a government takeover and control of people, their lives and thier business.
which should send shivers doen anyones spine.
there is NO provable causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature.
and there ti;s effect are neglible at best.
if we do all we can do and spend all we can spend to reduce CO2
and only change the temperature by a few tenths of a degree,
then MANS influence MUST BE NEGLIBLE.
this is really all about a government takeover and control of people, their lives and thier business.
which should send shivers doen anyones spine.
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.
- Boozer looking like 'the old Booz' 10:13 p.m.
- 5A: Darts impress in title loss 10:12 p.m.
- RSL's Russell seizes chance 10:10 p.m.
- Sloan wants Fes in better shape 10:07 p.m.
- 5A: Miners dig deep, claim crown 10:02 p.m.
- Researcher: Shroud writing authentic 9:56 p.m.
- Floods swamp areas of England 9:55 p.m.
- World datelines 9:54 p.m.
- Orphans forced to provide DNA 9:53 p.m.
- World powers lean on Iran 9:52 p.m.
- Mailman's nomination delivered
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio
- U. professor dies after fall from bus
- 'New Moon' rising: Vamps vs. 'wolves
- Horrifying scenario described
- Archuleta still calls Utah home
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th title, 4 years
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case
- Utah jobless rate at 6.5%
- Unga's status 'a game-time decision'
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
182 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah166
- BYU, Utah struck gold in coaches123
- Lies shatter Utah family122
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified102
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case95
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio94
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.94
- Utes knock off rival Aggies92
- Huntsman pleased with Obama84
I don't pretend to be an expert on global warming. I've met with...
Latest comments
I think you are spot on Harmon with BYU needing to pound it out on the ground...
YUP #42 all day baby!!
Go Kats!
Wow. What a catch by Bruce Nixs. Hurricane played an excellent game. Juan...
WOOOOHOOOO!!!! YEAH!!! OFA LATU waz thee "MVP" of the GAME!!!! THAS MYY...
Matheson is hardly conservative. He scored 36 for the American Conservative...
Actually tests were only done on the part of the shroud that was patched in...
And I'm as liberal as you can get. More power to you, Sarah!!
If Hatch was so concerned about the head of DHS being in favor of amnesty for...
Incredible finish to the game. Great job to all the boys on both sides. One...
Advertisements