Published: Sunday, Nov. 18 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
What experts? Most, including Al Gore have been shown to have used skewed data
in their findings. Had there not been global warming since befofe man, we would
still be in an ice age.The cost of "solutions" is too great and will be
largely ineffictive due to natural causes.
Of course the climate is warming. It always has and always will during inter
glacial periods. We are, geologically speaking, barely out of an ice age (of
which there have been many over tens of million of years. Whatever we do the
climate will continue to warm, in a jagged upward line not a smooth upward line,
until the onset of another ice age. Scientists have various theories what
triggers these climate changes, tilt of the Earth, sunspots, volcanoes,etc. but
they do not really know. Nor do they know the rates of change during these
periods of warming and cooling. Those among them who claim to "know"
that man made causes are the principal cause of the current warming when they
do not know the rate of change caused by natural warming or even what causes the
natural warming or simply making educated guesses. In short the Earth's
weather is never in stasis. Incidentally the earth's climate between 800
A.D. and 1100 A.D. was much warmer than it is currently. They were even
farming on the edges of Greenland. Don't confuse hypotheses with
There not experts
If denying man's influence on global climate patterns means we don't
have to do anything about it, we'll be there, and no science is going to
get in the way.
But if our political parties start working together looking for solutions,
they'll lose most of their political clout.What's more
important, solutions or keeping the arguments going?
DougS: "What experts? Most, including Al Gore have been shown to have used
skewed data in their findings."That is completely untrue. The scientific evidence connecting fossil fuels to global warming is
mounting every day. Seriously - this is no more up for discussion than whether
or not the Earth orbits the Sun.CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's
an established fact. There's more CO2 in the atmosphere now
than any time in the past several hundred thousand years. That's a
scientific fact. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 has shown that
the source of increased CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels. That, too, is
established fact. Global temperatures are rising, and fast. 2012
is about to become the hottest year on record for the United States and much of
the world. Again, that's an established scientific fact.A
hotter Earth means more energy in the oceans and atmosphere, magnifying the
effects of weather phenomena.Stop denying reality, and start dealing
with reality. You can do a lot to fix this problem without destroying the
economy -but we've got to start working together on this _now_.
It never fails to amaze me, that when another article is published about
"climate change" or "global warming," all the nut cases come out
of the woodwork on both the liberal and conservative side of the political
spectrum. They spout forth their rhetoric in a vain attempt to back up their
claim that global warming IS, or IS NOT, anthropometrically caused (AGW).
Furthermore, if you do not agree with their argument, you are an idiot.What both sides continue to completely ignore is this: The real question
regarding proof to the hypothesis of AGW is "HOW SENSITIVE is the
earth's atmosphere to these increased CO2 forcings?" Compounding the
answer to this question, there are also many other atmospheric forcings that can
cause increases in average global temperatures. But it is difficult to isolate
and measure the overall sensitivity of each forcing along with their respective
interrelationships.The answer to this question is still under
investigation by the REAL climate scientists. But until they have that answer,
the hypothesis that AGW is the main cause of rising average temperatures on
earth, it will remain just that – a hypothesis and not yet a proven
Mr. Folland advises, "Let's accept what the majority of experts are
telling us about human-caused climate change and work together for
solutions."Hmmm. I don't think science by consensus is
really the best kind.Mr. Folland is from Sandy. I live there too.
It doesn't take much digging past the couple of inches of top soil in my
yard to figure out one good reason for naming it that.That's
because much of Sandy rests on the remains of a glacial moraine (sand and
gravel) that was formed from the many miles-thick and tens of thousands of miles
broad ice caps that once encircled the Northern latitudes or our continent
during the last several hundred million years. Yet, most of that ice is no
longer there.In fact, every time someone drives up Big Cottonwood
canyon, they're doing it because the thousands of feet of glacial ice
largely responsible for forming the canyon....is gone! Melted! Many thousands
of years ago!I wonder how much exhaust from SUVs or coal-fired power
plants it too to do that? Maybe a vote will tell us.
Take away the tax on carbon and then see who still believes in man-made global
warming. Follow the dollar. Follow the pay check stubs to see who benefits.
See who has been paid to promote the man-made global warming theory.
You'll end up with the "usual suspects", a bunch of liberals who
never worked a day in their lives scheming to find a way to make the rest of the
world pay their "tax" and a bunch of "bought and paid for
scientists" who would fabricate anything to get more government money.
Only a fool can say there is no change going on in our environment such as
warming. The only argument is what is causing it. What I can't understand
is why, especially in Utah, that people who are "encouraged" to prepare
for catastrophic events would bury their heads so deep in the sand to ignore all
avenues to correct these issues. No one knows if it is possible but at least
make some effort. Can't we prepare and correct at the same time? What
happened to multitasking?
What climate change? There hasn't been a global rise in temperatures in
over 14 years. Check the charts.
Two periods in the past two thousand years have been warmer than now“we
have a substantial body of evidence for the natural non-CO2-induced
millennial-scale cycling of climate that alternately brought Asia, and most of
the rest of the world as well, into -- and then out of -- the Roman Warm Period,
the Dark Ages Cold Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. And
this wealth of real-world observations gives us every reason to believe that (1)
this natural climatic"References are on the internet. How
did the CO2 affect the 1938 hurricane which hit the east coast and did major
damage. How did CO2 levels cause the great droughts of the thirties .
Including the dust bowl that devastated the mid west? And finally Blue what is
the correct temperature mankind should be trying to maintain? Evolution wise
remember mankind is not a reason, only the total earth rates in this discussion.
ugottabkidnSandy, UT"Only a fool can say there is no
change going on in our environment such as warming. The only argument is what is
causing it. " That is exactly the issue, is it natural or not."What I can't understand is why, especially in Utah, that people who
are "encouraged" to prepare for catastrophic events would bury their
heads so deep in the sand to ignore all avenues to correct these issues. "
Could it be that the only method proposed is one of taxing the poor and middle
class with higher costs of food and heat. The earth warming as it
has at least twice in the last two thousand years, the Roman warming period and
the medieval warming period, warmer than it is now, is by no means a
catastrophic event. The only heads in the sand are those supporting cap and
trade because liberals say it is so. Notice how gw'rs promote the tax by
fear mongering and ridicule of opposition.
Why do I keep hearing that the warming stopped 15 years ago? Why have I also
heard that Mars also has undergone warming similar to earth? (this seems to
imply the sun was behind the warning).Also, if warming really were a
huge threat, why is no one besides me discussing making at least some use out of
Cjb, Warming did _not_ stop 15 years ago. Denialists are severely
and unethically cherry-picking data to reach that erroneous conclusion.You heard the Mars excuse from the same denialists, and it is also erroneous.
Solar output has been constant for at least the last several hundred years, and
studying the climate of Mars is a separate discipline unto itself. Come on, we
haven't even been studying Mars closely enough to even measure its climate
until the last few decades.To you denialists here, cite the
scientific research you claim show that global warming has stopped, or
isn't man-made, or isn't significant. Commentary pieces from
think-tanks and right wing blogs don't count. You need t show the actual
I admit I'm not a scientist so I have no independent knowledge (i.e. I
haven't personally read any of the studies or analyzed the data). However,
given the choice of whether to believe 99% of scientists who study this issue
vs. the Republican party talking heads (Rush, etc.) who have maybe at most an
associates degree in communications or something, I'll go with the
The concept that there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy including thousands
of scientists who speak myriad languages and work for governments (both free and
not) as well as universities and private corporations is laughable. What is the
likelihood that they would keep the secret? That they would keep the great
secret? What is the motivation to not break ranks? Money? You have to be
kidding, the industries dependent on fossil fuels would fund your research until
the end of time.If we fear climate change will result in a power
grab, then let's put in place what will diffuse that. But let's not
deny reality.BTW, unless you are trained in climate science, the
likelihood that you can adequately judge the quality of the work is low. There
are few endeavors where amateurs can gain that kind of expertise.
It is amazing to me that the evidence is clear, yet the deniers keep bring up
the same rhetoric, cherry picking a bit of data here or there to concoct a
story. The real question is why? Is it fear or greed that drives the deniers?
If they accept that climate change is occurring and man is driving the worst of
it, that will mean they will have to do something.So do they fear
change, well many big corporates are changing already Walmart and 3M for example
and making more profit along the way.Or is it greed, are they
concerned that doing something will effect their comfy lives. May be their
utility bills will go up or they will have to reduce the air conditioning.There is a third option they are being fed miss information by the press
and not prepared to research it out.. I say this because the regular comments
here seem to come from Fox. Interesting Fox is controlled by Rupert Murdoch who
changed nationality for money and has been bought before the UK parliament for
telephone hacking scandals.
Lets do as the letter writer suggests. Lets see what the scientists are
saying:From the Daily Mail "Global warming stopped 16 years ago,
reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove
it"From WSJ "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global
Warming Alarmism" There we learn that the best models are still wrong."WORLD MAY NOT BE WARMING, SAY SCIENTISTS" from National Center
for Policy Analysis"The sun shines some light on global warming
orthodoxy" National Post. There we find that the sun and cloud cover drive
global temperatures."NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND
THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE" from NASA's web site. This one again states
that we have had increasing amounts of solar radiation for many decades, and
that it effects cloud cover and temperatures.So, if we listen to the
experts, we have 2 conclusions about global warming.1. We
don't have a good model that can accurately tell us what is going on with
the climate.2. The sun is a very significant driver of global
This is what's happening...AM radio college drop-outs [and
their NO Global warming phoopah]vs.University, College, and
Scientific acedemia.BTW - This is the very same Rush Limbaugh who
keeps insisting tobacco doesn't cause cancer [contrary to 99% of all
Scientists], and is actually GOOD for you - as he brags about with his nicotene
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments