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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt
"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."

Both are greenhouse gases. Water vapor makes up the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and methane are 2 and 3. Just because water vapor is a better insulator in tropical or humid areas doesn't mean other greenhouse gases have no role.

Corn Dog
New York, NY

This is from a recent MSNBC interview with James Lovelock of gaia theory fame:

"“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

Owl
Salt Lake City, UT

Climate change is not a theory. Changing seasonal-dependent wildlife migratory patterns, retreating glaciers, higher ocean temperatures and a host of other apolitical data confirm that fact - it's not hypothetical. The question is the anthropogenic factor. That needs further research.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

RedShirt
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,

Speaking of Cherry Picking RedShirt –
Aren’t you the one who believes in that ONE study of ONE Scientist – and his “Abiotic theory” that fossil fuels aren’t fossils at all but are hydrocarbons found naturally and produced continually within the mantle of the earth. That oil seeps up through bedrock cracks to deposit in sedimentary rock.

I’ve heard Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity promote it as real – as opposed to just about 99.9999% of Science who claim otherwise.

Now, who would you suppose $$$ them to make such claims?
Same with Big Tobacco, and his nicotine stained fingers…..

Longfellow
Holladay, UT

Climate change has been made a controversial subject when it shouldn’t be. All reputable scientists on both sides of the issue agree that the earth’s climate changes. Further, the Greenhouse effect is real and increased CO2 contributes to the warming of the earth. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a real physical phenomenon. The argument has been over the degree to which AGW causes climate change and the necessity to address it.

The controversy has been generated because (1) many climate scientists have downplayed the uncertainty of their best predictions of future temperature and some climate scientists have engaged in disreputable behavior, (2) the news media and some environmental alarmists have hyped predictions beyond what the majority of reputable climate scientists predict, (3) those that have proposed solutions have either failed to accurately model or completely ignored the economic impact of the solutions and some have seen proposed solutions to climate change as a method to implement national and global transfer of wealth.

The result is that now the public is unconvinced of the significance of AGW and the necessity to address it in any manner that could have negative economic consequences.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

The op-ed "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" is written by James M.Taylor. Mr. Taylor is a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute is a conservative think tank that has received substantial money from oil companies.

In the nineties The Heartland Institute worked with and received money from Phillip-Morris, the tobacco company, in questioning the science behind health risks resulting from secondhand smoke.

The opinion piece by Mr. Taylor is based on claims made in a paper authored by Dr. Roy Spencer. Dr. Spencer is a climatologist and Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama. He is also a member of the Heartland Institute as well as a proponent of intelligent design. The paper, co-authored by William Braswell, “On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance" has been roundly denounced by the scientific community.

An article on the Discover Magazine blog, Bad Astronomy, “No, new data does not ‘blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism” does a good job of discussing the op-ed by James Taylor.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "mark" and your pont is what. Every scientist that is a Global Warming Alarmist is dependant on the government for their grants, and has learned that as long as they give the results that support the politicians' goals, they will receive funding.

Are you going to dismiss the alarmist's claims just as quickly as you dismiss the claims of those who look new data and expose the flaws in the models of the alarmists?

RyaninOgden
OGDEN, UT

Opinionated,

I really can't understand you're logic. I turn on my heater and my house gets warmer... How is that observation "godless?"

If you believe in God, then it would be well within his power to stop anything that's undesirable, like global warming, rape, and genocide... But he allows it to continue. Doesn't mean he's not there neccessarily, just that we have to bare the consequenses of our actions.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

The article from Duke Today, "Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report" is subtitled: Study does not discount the suspected contributions of 'greenhouse gases' in elevating surface temperatures.

From the article: The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases.

"Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change" Is a 2000 paper authored by Charles A. Perry and Kenneth J. Hsu which discusses the solar impact on global warming.

From the paper’s abstract: The debate on the cause and the amount of global warming and its effect on global climates and economics continues. As world population continues its exponential growth, the potential for catastrophic effects from climate change increases. One previously neglected key to understanding global climate change may be found in examining events of world history and their connection to climate fluctuations.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Liberal" unfortunately the data out there supports Abiotic Oil theory.

See "Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'" at WND. There we find that samples of hydrocarbons coming from vents deep in the ocean contain carbon13, not carbon 12. Carbon 13 means that the oil was produced Abiotically, not by dead dinos.

Also read "Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring" at US News. There we read about a well that was declining in production, then began to flow again with oil that can only be explained by Abiotic Oil theories.

FYI, there is more than 1 scientist exploring these theories. According to the articles, there are groups of scientists working on these theories.

red state pride
Cottonwood Heights, UT

"It's time for us to elect officials who recognize this and are willing to make serious changes in energy, transportation and other public policies"
What changes does Mr Jarvis have in mind? Government controlled thermostats? Mass transit only for the masses? "other public policies" e.g. no more single family dwellings?
I am very interested in what these enlightened "officials" will prescribe for us. Methinks we have another "watermelon" on our hands (green on the outside, red on the inside)

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

RedShirt,

"Every scientist that is a Global Warming Alarmist is dependant on the government for their grants, and has learned that as long as they give the results that support the politicians' goals, they will receive funding."

This would assume that in the United States, both Republican and Democratic administrations (at the state and federal levels) all have the same goals regarding Global Climate Change. Also, that governments throughout the world (democratic and totalitarian, advanced and third world) are all in agreement on GCC even though they are not in agreement on hardly anything else.

To call this unlikely would be kind. It would be a conspiracy theory of the first magnitude.

The key questions would be:

"What is it about GCC that causes such phenomenal agreement among all governments?"

and

"University professors are willing to buck conventional wisdom on nearly every topic, why not here?"

FL UTE
LARGO, FL

Abrupt climate and hemispheric temperature changes have occurred repeatedly in the past 80,000 years, presumably without mankind's assistance.

Scientists studying past climate variability have discovered temperatures rising or dropping several degrees in a period of time as short as 3 decades.

To me, it seems likely that our CO2 creation by continuing to burn carbon fuels is contributing to GW, but how much that contribution is, is not well understood.

But, abrupt climate change without people being the cause has been documented, and likely will happen again. Got your food storage?

DougS
Oakley, UT

Thanks to Global Warming we do not live in the Ice Age which happened long before man and his CO2 production. As for Scientific studies, it might be nice to be shown what/how the data was obtained and why they reached the conclusion they did. e.g. Why is "Man-made" a part of their findings to the exclusion of other possibilities?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT
To "LDS Liberal" unfortunately the data out there supports Abiotic Oil theory.

Uh NO, it doesn’t.
And World Net Daily is hardly considered a reliable source of news and information.

Besides – even if I played along and believed every word you said, Abiotic Oil formation STILL requires Millions of Years and Plate Tectonics to produce….So burning Oil at the rates we are will STILL deplete the reserves.

Renewable Energy [Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geo-Thermal] all powered by the SUN [or Son, what have you] has been, is, and always will be the answer.

Hellooo
Salt Lake City, UT

If somehow man can harness the effect that caused the nice warm winter in Salt Lake this year and make it the norm, then I think most Salt Lakers would support the influences causing such changes.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Liberal" what about the US News, does that meet your standards? What about the Royal Institute of Technology, are they also faulty?

How about the simple fact that Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH has been able to simulate Abiotic theories and produce hydrocarbons.

From Science Daily read "Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find" apparently "Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated."

Do you also have a poblem with the US News and with Science Daily.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Skeptics say that while traces of abiotic hydrocarbons may exist, little data support the idea of economically meaningful deposits. "Companies have been looking for oil for 100 years. If all this abiogenic stuff is there, why haven't they found it?" asks geochemist Geoffrey Glasby, who spent nine months investigating the matter for a 2006 review paper in Resource Geology. He concluded the totality of the evidence did not support the concept.

"There is a difference between a few parts per million and tens of millions of barrels," says Chevron geologist Barry Jay Katz, another skeptic. He notes that the theory fails to explain the wide variety of biological compounds found in oil from different parts of world. Oil from younger rocks contains compounds linked to flowering plants, but oil from older rocks formed before flowering plants existed contains only more primitive organic compounds.-Forbes, Endless Oil?
Robert Langreth. In response to Vladimir Kutcherov's theories.

m.g. scott
LAYTON, UT

I just want to remind all of you, in case others have not, that as recently as the 1970's the scientific fear was the new global ice age. Now in Earth time, that is barely one second ago. How have things changes so much? Answer: Politics. There is a lot of money to be made with things getting HOT. Just ask Al Gore. The thing that galls me about the alarmists is that you'd think by their reasoning that the Earth had never been hotter or colder than it is now. Historical evidence shows periods of both. Why all the fuss. The wonderful planet Earth has a way of balancing the books, without our help. It has done so for millenia.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

m.g. scott
"I just want to remind all of you, in case others have not, that as recently as the 1970's the scientific fear was the new global ice age"

A literature review of the scientific journals of the 70s, and the most read AMS (American Meteorological Society) journal article a year or two ago, showed that the majority of papers on global temperature, even in the 70s, were suggesting warming (albeit not as strong a majority as now but a majority nonetheless). It should also be noted that the drop in temperatures from the 1950s through the 70s was primarily due to the fact that aerosols have a cooling effect on warming. This is where a lot of the forecasts for cooling would come from, a continuation of us throwing more and more aerosols into the air. However, through regulation we got control over those pollutants and so the man-made cooling component of aerosols is being bested by the greenhouse gas warming component which is primarily why we switched back to warming.

to comment

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