Published: Wednesday, April 25 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
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.
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).
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
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.
Funny, they'll use anything BUT a thermometer to talk about anthropogenic
global warming. That's because the thermometers show no change since 1998.
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
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.
@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
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
@Opinionated"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.@procuradorfiscal"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.
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
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments