Comments about ‘Who believes in climate change? Many studies point that global warming is legitimate’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 25 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927) was a Swedish scientist, originally a physicist, but often referred to as a chemist, and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903. The Arrhenius equation, lunar crater Arrhenius and the Arrhenius Labs at Stockholm University are named after him.

Arrhenius was also the first scientist to calculate that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to increased temperatures. You could reasonably call him the father of global warming. He never heard of Al Gore.

Huntsville, UT

Don't worry, Utah's politicians will do what is best for Industry no matter the cost to the earth, humanity and the rest of "god's creations" (which don't matter anyway, their just here for our use).

Salt Lake City, UT

The scientific evidence indicating that global warming is real, significant, and man-made is overwhelming, and growing every day. "Worst-case" scenarios discussed as recently as ten years ago have turned out to be wrong - because actual trends in CO2 accumulation, ocean acidification, polar ice melting, climate zones shift, etc. are worse than those "worst case" predictions.

Sadly, the political climate we find ourselves in today makes it possible for large numbers of Americans to reject scientific evidence that conflicts with personal beliefs, and never contemplate the danger of that.

Blaze away, guys. Go watch your cable news shows. Reality will still be waiting for your when you're done fantasizing about conspiracy theories.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

But this is UTAH….

Where college drop outs like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck can trump each and every Scientific study, real world and casual observations, and plain old Common Sense don’t matter.

Even statements by the LDS church regarding the Environment can’t compete with these blow-hards.

Sad and pathetic.

Thinkin\' Man
Rexburg, ID

Funny, they'll use anything BUT a thermometer to talk about anthropogenic global warming. That's because the thermometers show no change since 1998.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

The HL Mencken quote is good. But I prefer Ed Koch (former mayor of New York).

"I can explain this to you; I can't comprehend it for you."

Salt Lake City, UT

Re: Don Jarvis: I realize that this op-ed is intended to worry us about "man-made global warming," but your cherry-picked quotes are entirely unconvincing.

And you especially undermined your own credibility when you likened "climate-change doubters" to those who doubted the dangers of DDT. Sorry, but DDT is a miracle chemical that has saved millions of lives. But because of its politically motivated ban in the 1970s, millions have needlessly died.

Also, your Mencken quote applies much more to the peddlers of global warming ALARMISM than to those who have doubts.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Thinking Man
"That's because the thermometers show no change since 1998."

You cherrypicked the strongest El Nino in decades to be your starting point (you may not have known it was the strongest El Nino, but that's why it has the title of warmest year on record). You left out details like that the 00s were warmer than the 90s which means that it is warming.

Sandy, UT

Whether there is global warming or not is so debatable depending on who you want to believe. But, if it exists, the attitude that it is man made is egocentric and Godless. To accuse man of global warming is to deny the existence of a supreme being that may be working his own design for whatever reason there may be.

Cedar City, UT

Quite a few studies do indeed support the concept of human-caused climate change. Quite a few others refute it. Instead of "flunking" a test recognizing human-caused climate change, I prefer to think of Utah "passing" a test by refusing to believe that it's been unquestionably proven. It has not. The climate has been changing ever since there has been a climate, and it's going to continue to change regardless of human activity and whether we like it or not.

Tooele, UT

Re: "Who believes in climate change?"

Who cares?

Real science is not a popularity contest. It's not about how many eggheads cluster about a theory, it's about what facts actually and demonstrably support its predictions and conclusions.

That's what differntiates phrenology and eugenics -- both of which had educated, respected proponents -- from real science.

Climate "scientists" -- proponents of one of the softest of the soft sciences -- take the phrenology approach. They expect us to "take their word for it" when they give us what amounts to a best guess about causes of, and solutions to climate change.

Their shrill insistence that we invest enormous sums on radical, expensive schemes -- totally lacking in engineering, testing, and proof of value -- demonstrate an activist, not a scientific approach.

When pressed for facts, climate "scientists" resort to attacks on questioners, or to lame excuses regarding "nuanced" data, inexact models, and complex evaluative instruments.

Well, Eintsein is reputed to have said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

ron holdaway
Draper, UT

Of courase there is climate change. We are in an interglacial period and, in geologic terms, at the outset of the natural warming of an interglacial period. The only question is the extent mankind's activities may be adding to the warming. Since there is no consensus as to what causes the natural warming, let alone quantification of it, it is impossible to signify the importance of the "unatural warming as compared to the natural warming. In this area of psuedo science, as in Economics, the so called experts are as contentious as theologians. Witness the gentleman from England who wanted to anathemitize any one who disagreed with his "consensus". William James hit it on the button when he said "what is "truth" but the passionate affirmation of desire". Those who desire unnatural warming to be the chief cause will find it so. Their opposite numbers will do the same. Neither can possibly quantify which cause or causes is the principal one. Lfind their own "truth". In X thousand years, long after we are all gone and the earth begins to slip into another ice age people will look back on this controversy and say--Ho Hum.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Look, I'm not a climate scientist, nor, I suspect, are any of the other posters here. The question is who do we believe? I tend to believe experts in the field. I tend not to believe people with no expertise in the field. I rather think of climate change deniers as believers in a beautiful and innocent theory, waylaid by a vicious gang of facts.

Salt Lake City, UT

"To accuse man of global warming is to deny the existence of a supreme being that may be working his own design for whatever reason there may be."

Thinking man is having a role in recent warming doesn't mean those people think there isn't a God. After all, we created the ozone hole, so why isn't it absurd that we could cause other things? Besides... God put us in charge of taking care of this planet.

@John H.
"Quite a few studies do indeed support the concept of human-caused climate change. Quite a few others refute it."

The vast majority of studies support it. Your equivalency is false.

"When pressed for facts, climate "scientists" resort to attacks on questioners"

When you and many others consider everything they do to be a fraud because it doesn't conform to the pre-conceived narrative you want to be true because some obese drug addict with a microphone in the morning told you so, it really should be no surprise that sometimes they could be a little frustrated by the accusations leveled at them.

Salt Lake City, UT

Ten known effects of global warming:

"10) The growing season across the Northern Hemisphere is expanding;

9) Precipitation has increased across the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (where most of the world’s crops are grown);

8 ) Higher CO2 levels are leading to more productive plants, including crops such as corn, wheat, and rice …

7) and contributing to an increasing global output of food products;

6) The combination of the above is leading to a true “greening” of the environment;

5) Global tropical cyclone activity has been declining over the past 20 years and is now near its 40-yr low;

4) The rate of sea level rise has slowed during the past decade;

3) The rate of global temperature rise has remained moderate and likely below the central value of climate model projections for the past 30 years;

2) Evidence continues to mount against high climate sensitivity values.

1) All this has the net result of increasing public health and welfare. For example across the globe, the life expectancy at birth is the longest it has ever been, and continues to climb upwards."

Far East USA, SC

"To accuse man of global warming is to deny the existence of a supreme being that may be working his own design for whatever reason there may be."

Couldn't you apply that logic to any of the worlds ills?

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

There is no balance between those arguing for and those arguing against Global Climate Change. Among the scientists study these things, the consensus is overwhelming. Are there a few doubters? Sure. There usually are in any field. We cannot make public policy based on outliers.

Reference earth's warming or cooling cycles, I take it that if those of us commenting here are aware of these, so are the scientists for whom this is a life's work.

If you are concerned about whether the GCC "Alarmists" or doubters are financially motivated. Do the math. The companies who have something to lose in the GCC argument are among the very largest in the world. So-called green companies cannot hold a candle to them in terms of financial influence.

I recall the wars over smoking in the 1960s. Independent scientists all over the world kept coming up with the same conclusion. But the tobacco companies paid for research to cast doubt on the science and make it seem "unsettled". Lots of folks died because of that.

I also remember the arguments that man simply could not pollute the rivers, lakes or oceans enough to matter. That also proved false.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I’ll place Global Warming deniers with all the deniers and their claims…

The Moon Landings were fake,
Obama is a Muslim,
And Cigarettes don’t cause cancer,

Listen up lemmings, your hero Rush Limbaugh and his nicotine stained fingers, still denies this too.

USS Enterprise, UT

First, the climate is changing, just as it has since the earth existed.

The problem is that the climate scientists have no idea how the atmosphere holds heat. Some think that it is CO2, but that doesn't hold true for tropical or humid areas since water vapor is such a better insulator.

Those of you who complain about AGW deniers cherry picking data, lets look at what NASA and some of the big climate change organizations have said recently:

From Forbes "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism". Here we find that actual data has found "that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted".

From Duke University "Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report". Here again, we find that the alarmists are basing their statements on a faulty model, and the energy output of the sun is not fully understood.

From the National Academy of Sciences "Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change" apparently the sun is a highly significant driver for climate change.

There are many studies that show holes in AGW alarmist theories.

Anti Bush-Obama
Washington, DC

Actually, one of the lead climate change propogandists James Lovelock finally defected from the eugenic global warming movement. He finally admitted that they have no idea what the climate is actually doing.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments