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.
@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.
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
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.
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTFirst, 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
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
"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
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?"
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
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?
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTTo "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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
LDS Liberal, Sometimes I am in shock that you are still replying. Common sense
seems to be a lost art for you and your only agenda seems to be to cling to your
title, "liberal" NOT open minded.
I don't trust the science that has been shared to suggest man is the cause
of major changes to the planet.
Re: alt134Still the truth is that in the overall history of the
Earth it has been either warmer or colder based upon its own doings and not
anything Humans have done. The natural processes are still and will go on.
Nothing we do will change that.
Gratitude for a gift is shown by using the gift for its intended purpose and by
proper maintenance. God gave us this planet, thus we should both maintain it
and use it wisely. Whether there is global warming or not, wasting carbon-based
fuel is not showing gratitude. Failing to develop alternatives is foolish. Why did the government finance NASA in the first place? The pay-off for space
exploration was too chancy and long-range for private investment to finance.
The pay-off for developing energy alternatives is also chancy and long-range.
Even so, there is some private investment. Hoorah for those brave visionaries!
LDS Liberal,I find more common sense with Rush, Beck, and Hannity
than you. Global warming sounds serious, but it doesn't make it true. The
earth is cleaner today than a hundred years ago. Do your homework!It's amazing how these people proclaiming global warming, are big time
fossil fuel burners. I don't see them living in a cave.
Volcanoes, and natural occurring forest fires have been polluting the air for
thousands of years.Al Gore got a "D" for science in high
school and failed it in college. Not a good source for forming an opinion. Man
has done much to clean up the planet.
The problem comes from a lack of trust of scientists. Frankly Scientists
aren't helping much. They often portray humanity as the enemy of the
planet. Go and watch Bill Nye's "Eye of Nye" show on Population. He
actually praises China's one child policy and makes it sound like having
less human beings on the planet is a good thing. That viewpoint is not a small
one within academic circles. Many of the supposed solutions to Climate Change
would be economic suicide and would cause a large amount of human suffering.
Until scientists start thinking more compassionately they won't receive
more support from skeptics.