Comments about ‘My view: The climate change solution debate’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Aug. 24 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Let's Agree to Disagree
Spanish Fork, UT

For a change lets not argue about the 'science' of the issue. It really comes down to the faith people have in the scientists who make this claim. Whether or not you believe they had a bias toward this result or stand to gain anything by coming to this conclusion (that if the climate is changing it is due to human activity).

Forgetting all of that...

I don't want to be the one to burst anyone's green energy pipe dream bubble but as a country we are headed for bankruptcy. If the country where a ship, it would be taking on water at an alarming rate.

A carbon tax would inevitably cause higher prices on every necessity of life while reducing wages and making America even less competitive in the manufacturing world...all at a time when we can ill afford setbacks in any of those areas.

John C. C.
Payson, UT

I, too, see an ever-growing consensus among scientists on the reality of global warming.

However, I recommend that the best way to draw support from us less-educated voters is not to point to little, short-term events like recent droughts or local red burn days. Don't count the raised hands of those who are one side of the other. Rather describe the persuasive scientific observations that intellectual consensus is based on. We should be able to understand it if climate scientists could learn from school teachers how to present complex topics in lay terms.

Is it the shrinking ice caps? A huge collection of temperatures from all over the world averaged enough to show a definite trend? The shifting lines of forest growth across continents? Is the measuring and judging process as complicated and secretive as college football rankings?

provo, Utah

Thank you DN for an honest discussion about climate change. It has been a taboo subject to recognize the obvious in the recent past.

The carbon tax I favor is one that recognizes the real costs of carbon and evens up the playing field to promote renewable energy production that does not have hidden costs.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

Regarding that hurricane fixin' to hit Florida during the GOP convention: If this is caused by "legitimate human-caused climate change," that body GOP chould be able to "just shut that whole thing down" so that it doesn't cause any damage and disrupt their festivities.

The GOP will be celebrating Romney's fossil fuel-focused energy plan that doesn't even mention climate change as an issue. I can hear the convention chants: "Burn, baby, burn!"

Salt Lake City, UT

I know the editorial content of the DNews is resembling the LATimes now thanks for the new editor in chief.

Far East USA, SC

Cap and Trade was originally known as emissions trading.

Emissions trading was the GOP (George HW Bush) driven answer to bring free market forces into the equation to combat acid rain.

And by most accounts, it was a great success.

Thank you GOP. I give you credit for this one.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

David Brin wrote an excellent article (Climate Skeptics vs. Climate Deniers) that for me, a one time skeptic, ended any serious debate on whether or not we are causing climate change.

Fact Check
Pleasant Grove, UT

This statement by the author is simply not true: "The debate about whether human-caused climate change is occurring is virtually over among qualified climate scientists."

Anyone can look up on Wikipedia a list of "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. (Search for the quoted text.) It's a pretty long list.

Scientific debate does not come to an end just because one researcher changes his mind.

Dave D
Pocatello, ID

NPR's Planet Money team (a group of economic reporters) asked economists who identified across the political spectrum if they could agree on any economic policies and a carbon tax was one thing they all agreed on, though the very conservative economist thought implementing such a policy would be difficult. You should check it out. I don't think DN allows links, but the title is called "Six Policies Economists Love (And Politicians Hate)."

Sensible Scientist
Rexburg, ID

What warming?

Global temperatures have not risen since 1998, while the supposed culprit of warming, CO2, has continued to rise. That means something major is wrong with the computer models. It also means that carbon taxes and other measures would not have done anything to reduce temperatures over the past 14 years, nor would they have any effect in the future.

The poll everyone still refers to (it's over a decade old) did not ask whether mankind is primarily responsible for global warming, as implied by most news reports. It simply asked whether mankind is having a "discernible" effect on climate. Consensus falls apart when you ask whether mankind is driving climate.

Salt Lake City, UT

This article does nothing to further scientific understanding of climate change. It's another in the long line of misleading, unquestioning, pro-man-caused global warming pieces pasted in virtually every newspaper in the country.

There are thousands of scientists who do not accept the alarmist rhetoric of those clamoring for governmental action on climate change. The two climate scientists mentioned in this piece have proved to be unreliable sources of information on the topic. Richard Muller has never been a skeptic. It's easy to find quotes, from him, dating back to 2003 in which he declares CO2 to be "the greatest pollutant in human history". For him to claim an about-face, in 2012, based on the BEST study, is laughable at best and should make any serious person question his motives. James Hansen is even worse. He has staged hearings and "tweaked" data since 1980 to further the warming cause he champions.

"Scientists" who claim that most or all of the approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature over the last 100 years is man-made and that recent heat waves and other weather phenomena are caused by humans, know perfectly well that it's totally unproved.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Fact Check
I checked out the source you mentioned, and discovered that fewer than .01 percent of peer-reviewed papers in the field of climatology disagreed with the scientific consensus, and that the majority of papers expressing skepticism were from scientists in fields other than climatology. I would say the consensus is fairly complete.

Fact Check
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Eric Samuelsen

1) Your paraphrase of the Wikipedia article is off by an order of magnitude.
2) As revealed by Climategate emails, the peer review process itself is biased.
3) Richard Muller is in a field "other than climatology." Are you saying his findings don't count? Then what's the point of the article?

the truth
Holladay, UT

The main faulty assertion of this article is that argument over man-made climate change is over,

and now the battle is all about who can make money on climate change and how they can.

And that does not trouble the left at all?

I can't help but think if Bain capital was profiting billions on climate change, the left would be howling.

Salt Lake City, UT

It surprises me when doctors, such as Dr. Folland, who should be especially respectful of the scientific method, are too willing to jump on the bandwagon with global warming (oops, I mean "climate change") alarmists. Human caused global warming is not science -- rather, it's a fashionable fad and an unproven, dubious theory.

If we follow Dr. Folland's fraudulent prescription, we'll have fewer businesses, fewer jobs, less freedom, and higher taxes, all with little or no proven benefit. I'd prefer instead that we use our finite resources on things that have significant PROVEN benefits. A carbon tax is a REALLY BAD idea.

Congrats to the 4 out of 5 members of our congressional delegation who have more courage and respect for true science than the global warming alarmists do.

Thornbury, Vic

Sorry "Sensible Scientist" you are not telling the truth. Look for "State of the Climate - 2012" by the CSIRO and many other reports from countries around the World. Stop spreading the garbage from Fox news

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

solutions to the concept that fossil fuel consumption is causing climate change may be coming. Certainly all of us would prefer not to increase global temperature. Sorry it won't work now. Maybe in the futere. "Cool Planet" claims they can produce a high quality gasoline and with a 100% negative carbon from miscanthus grass. We will see.

Payson, AZ

To Fact Check: The statement regards "qualified climate scientists." There are exceedingly few qualified (read "published") climate scientists who doubt that anthropogenic global warming is real. Ironically, the chart on the right side of the Wikipedia page you suggest pretty much tells the story. About 82% of scientists, and 98% of PUBLISHED CLIMATE SCIENTISTS agree with the concensus position. Sure, one can always find outliers, there are Ph.Ds in Biology who support Creationism. That really doesn't create a "controversy" or "debate." Really, stick a fork in this one, it's done.

Payson, AZ

Casual readers of this thread need to be made aware that there are forces out there that continually churn out disinformation in the form of "talking points," which are promulgated by oil and energy interests. These interests literally have trillions of dollars on the line. Deniers will counter that global warming advocates also have a vested interest, in the form of government grants, which they say skews the results in favor of climate change. I ask the casual reader to compare the amount of money available to the average scientist in the form of government grants, with the amounts KNOWN to have been paid out to "outlier" scientists such as Willie Soon by Exxon et al. I won't tell you the dollar amounts, you can research this yourselves. Then come back and tell us which side is more credible.

to comment encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments