What's amazing to me is that people can still deny climate change. I guess
they think they know more than scientists (the experts).
@jsf;Maybe you should do a little more research. Most plants do not
like higher temperatures and will stop growing during periods of excess heat, if
not outright die.
Whats more amazing is that you can deny something where theres so much physical
proof as a "myth" and turn around and claim that God exists. Which is
more likely to be a myth?
Sorry, jsf, there is no need for theology here, just science. And I really do
hope it is okay with you, but I will listen to the experts in the field, not
you. Sorry that’s inconvenient for you.Global warming is
having and will continue to have significant negative effects on our oceans and
the communities that depend on them. The loss of ice sheets in the arctic is
having and will increasingly have adverse consequences for many species of
marine mammals like polar bears, walruses, and ice seals. Warmer oceanic and
riparian waters is resulting in increased marine diseases and invasive species,
changes in weather systems, modifications in species distribution patterns, dead
zones and coral bleaching. . . increased fishing risks and adverse health
consequences. Ocean acidification will harm calcium carbonate plankton,
adversely affect shellfish larvae, hinder the ability of corals to build new
reefs and cause serious food chain disruptions. Sea level rise will cause
habitat loss from inundation, infrastructure damage, and climate refugees that
will need to be relocated as their island and coastal homelands are eliminated.-
Oceans and Climate Change, The Ocean Foundation
markOnly human activity, "is caused when the CO2 emitted by human
activity". A good example of fearmongering and misdirection. What about
all the naturally occuring CO2. It doesn't effect the outcome. And I
would hardly call the greenhouse growers in the Nation as not experts. It is so
amazing that creationists are skoffed at because, they say god created the
earth, and yet global warmists think they are god and control what happens with
the earth and think they can control the things that cause evolution. Species
die off is a natural event on the earth. Yours is the fearmongering of being
afraid of change and evolution.
"Evidence gathered by scientists around the world over the last few years
suggests that ocean acidification could represent an equal -- or perhaps even
greater threat -- to the biology of our planet than global warming,"
co-author Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral
Reef Studies and The University of Queensland says.Ocean
acidification, which the researchers call the 'evil twin of global
warming', is caused when the CO2 emitted by human activity, mainly burning
fossil fuels, dissolves into the oceans."These changes are
taking place at rates as much as 100 times faster than they ever have over the
last tens of millions of years"Besides directly impacting on the
fishing industry and its contribution to the human food supply at a time when
global food demand is doubling, a major die-off in the oceans would affect birds
and many land species and change the biology of Earth as a whole profoundly,
Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg adds.-Ocean Acidification: 'Evil Twin' Threatens
World's Oceans, Scientists Warn, Science Daily, Apr. 1, 2012jsf, you don't mind if I listen to the experts and not to you are your
potheads, do you? Sorry if that's inconvenient.
Yes the earth's climate has changed. When it's changed quickly it has
a dramatic effect on the Earth's biosphere - like mass extinctions. For
example, the dinosaurs. The hypothesis is that a large meteor hit the earth,
caused a large amount of dust to rise into the atmosphere and cooled the planet.
Then no more dinosaurs.The Earth will be just fine. We however
might be in serious trouble.
How in the world has climate change become a political issue? There is no way a
persons' opinion can be based on their political persuasion. Unless, of
course they cease critical thought.Please stop throwing around the
red herring "liberal" and "conservative" names. These have
nothing to do with science.
Twin Lights not just the pot heads, but they use the information to maximize
their production. It is a scientific fact that even potheads understand. So
how much intelegence is hadby those who don't know the facts. What is the
correct temperature Lights? No liberals yet giving an intelligent number.
Green houses also use this information. Sorry for the inconvienient truth.
The truth,Not everything you break can be fixed. I do think we can
fix it but how much damage will be done before we do? Like an aircraft carrier,
the climate does not “turn” the second you spin the wheel. It takes
a long time to react.If money was not involved, would you then
believe the science? Is your lack of acceptance just economically driven?Mike Richards,Peer review is a myth? So when you go for
medical treatment, and your doctor says this is the best treatment according to
peer reviewed studies, you say “peer review is a myth” and go with
an alternative treatment? Really?Your point that the results are
money driven supposes a worldwide conspiracy involving tens of thousands of
people across a variety of economic and governmental systems, languages, and
cultures. Where have we ever seen such a conspiracy be successful?Jsf,Pot growers. Is that where we want to get the critical
scientific information we need to save the planet? I think not.
IF man can supposedly cause climate change, they why can't they
fix it?There is no study showing we can effect change in climate for
good by no more than a few tenths of one degree.IT stand to reason
and pure logic, if there is climate change then man is not causing it, it is
99.7% natural.While we can do things better,living our
lives based on illogical and unreasonable leftest fears is a very bad way of
doing things.leftest whining is not getting us anywhre but putting
more power ans m0oney in hands of a few, while depriving the rest us
of money, property, proper heating and cooling, economic liberty, freedom of
movement, personal freedom and liberty, and freedom of choice,
just to name a few.
"Peer review" is a myth when those who "review" climate change
are paid by the government and when their "findings" would cause the
largest tax increase in human history. Take away the
"grants" and then see how many "scientists" agree with man-cased
global warming. The lies of those "scientists" have already been
reported. That doesn't matter to those who want the money from those new
Pot growers around the world know 1,500 ppm levels of CO2 and higher
temperatures create optimum conditions for plant growth. At 390 ppm plants are
starved for CO2. Now tell us what tempature and CO2 level your going to hold
at. And sea level rise is not a valid arguement. Every progresive knows
humanity does not merit a better existence than the roaches crawling through the
plants decaying. All you liberals with vast understanding and intelligence give
us a valid temperature and CO2 level that is not based on fearmongering, hype,
and is based on some reality. Some glaciers in the Himalayas mountain range
have gained a small amount of mass between 1999 and 2008, new research shows.
Antarctica ice sheets are growing. 1,300 peer reviewed papers and not any tell
us the correct temperature. UN said cap and trade was wealth redistribution.
Fear mongering progressives are alive and well. I'm going for that 1,500
level. Lets end world hunger.
Yeah, that's right man cannot change the enviroment. God said so. Just
don't look around at the world, keep your nose in that Bible, and you can
actually believe that. And, yeah, even more then that, it's all
a huge conspiracy, just to make Al Gore rich. Now that makes a lot of sense. Now, excuse me, I have some yard work to do. I've got some weeds
The ignorance displayed in this letter is mind boggling! Bubble said it best
with respect to the science, but the comments I find most disturbing are
“the good Lord prepared this earth for us…” and the total lack
of perspective betrayed in the “follow the money…” comment.The “good Lord” comment is troubling because it suggests a
mindset that believes we are simply incapable of screwing things up so bad that
it could lead to cataclysmic events - or worse, that if we do we will be saved
by a celestial super-hero. Given the age of the earth and the fact that 99.8% of
all species that have ever lived are now extinct suggests this view is a
fantasy… and a particularly dangerous one. Follow the money
– yes, please do. Look at the foreign share holders of Fox for example,
and in general look at the dollars at stake in continuing to burn fossil fuels
unabated, and then compare the magnitude of that motivation with the geeky
scientist applying for a grant… the image of a mountain and a ant hill
comes to mind.
To all who say that Al Gore "invented" global warming: Svante Arhenius,
a Swedish physicist, was the first to determine that increased carbon levels in
the atmosphere would lead to higher surface temperatures. He did this in 1896,
he never heard of Al Gore. His handwritten physics equations can still be found.
They have never been refuted.
As a Republican I feel there is nothing wrong with exploring "clean"
energy options and reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels. Such policy would
reduce our dependence upon the Middle East. I call on politicians, the
president and the Congress to come up with a plan that encourages further
research, further market penetration of "clean" energies, and do it
without increasing taxes further or spending additional government dollars. We
cannot afford more government spending when $.40 of every dollar spent is
borrowed money.Go ahead and push the green policies, but do it
wisely without further breaking the bank that is already broken. Encourage mass
transit, community planning and development that reduces long commutes, and safe
transport by bicycle and walking. Just recognize that we live in a fast-paced,
high stress culture where not everyone can participate in bus transit, etc.Look to hydroelectric power, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind,
geothermal. And while you are exploring those sources, do not increase federal
debt. In other words, work with a balanced budget and begin paying down
debt.In the mean time, a balanced approach would still allow for
utilization of fossil fuels.
And then folks wonder why the GOP keeps losing Presidential Elections?You can't always take the unpopular stand and play the "victim"
card as the GOP has a long history of doing. Eventually, you gotta adjust and
just accept what scientists, educated people, tolerant people, women, and
middle-class people believe/want. If the GOP is really going to win
in 2016 they need to reject the Russel Bender mentality. Keep this up and the
Demos won't need to even campaign in 2016 in order to win. You folks are
merely hanging yourselves denying man-made climate change.
Slap-down the 47%, Shun the Latinos and other ethnic minorities, Fight women's rights, pull the educational rug out from under the
young people, and like comments like this one - Spitting in the eye
of Scientists......yet Mitt Romney and the rest of the GOP dream up
wild excuses that Americans are the one's being stupid and believe Obama is
Santa Claus.Gov. Bobby Jindal said it best -- REPUBLICANS themselves
need to stop being the Party of Stupid...or Gov. Haley Barbour when he
suggested the GOP give themselves a "proctology exam".
Since 1991, there have been 13,950 scientific peer-reviewed article written on
global climate change.24 of them - 0.17% - reject global warming or
endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions.The reference in this
letter to the data released a month or so ago stating there has been no warming
over the past 17 years is a reference to an article written by climate change
deniers who purposely misinterpreted recently released data. The article and
misinterpretation have been thoroughly debunked.Has the climate
changed before? Yes, it has. And when it has, it has led to massive
extinctions and changes in the surviving flora and fauna.
Utah used to be known as a place that valued education. We were taught to study
things out and then make a decision. Now, it seems that people make decisions
based on their favorite radio talk show hosts. I was taught that we
were to be good stewards of the land in which we live. Isn't it time that
we all work to make this beautiful land in which we live more tolerable for
Mr. Bender needs a reality check.
If we follow Russell and M-man's advice to "follow the money", it
will surely lead us to the boardroom of Exxon Mobile. And that's where it
stays, taking out a few bucks for buying off cheap scientists, because they
DON'T pay any taxes.
LDS Lib says, "I can't understand why Conservatives fall for the same
old business trickery time after time."Could it have something
to do with their collective level of intelligence?
I suggest old Russell pull an ice cube from the freezer at home and set it on
the kitchen counter then explain to us all why it melts. I would suggest that it
might be that it is warmer on the counter than it is in the freezer. Maybe now
he can explain why the ice caps an glaciers are much smaller than when Russell
took his last science class. I would suggest it's warmer. If you want to
argue cause, fine but to suggest the planet is not changing is nothing more than
foolishness. I have seen it.
Ahhhhhh.Finally, Russel Bender comes out of the woodwork! I thought
for sure he'd voice his opinion on the Presidential Election. He might be a
few weeks late, but at least he "blessed" us with his old take on Global
Warming. For years now Russel has written in complaining about the Spanish Fork
windmills, Obama, and how foolish it is to take care of the environment because
God gave it to us to use. With folks like Russel, why do we even
need scientists, doctors, and other experts?
@MountanmanHayden, IDTwin lights. Rush Limbaugh has nothing to do
with my knowledge of CO2 supposedly causing global warming. I learned all I need
to know about this issue in the 4th grade:[Then you didn't
listen very well when they taught you in 4th grade that the temperatures on
Venus exceed 400 degrees due to an atmosphere being made up mostly of CO2 - a
greehhouse gas. Mr. Moutaman = F. ]As as for the letter writer --
OK let's follow the money....I follow it right back
to Big OIL, and Coal - their Government subsides, and $Hundreds of Billions in
annual profits.Who stands the most to win?Who stands the most
to loose?And will these Oil $Billionaires just stand back and do nothing
about it?Oldest play in the book.Reminds me of Big
Tobacco telling us for years and bribing their own "Scientists" and
conducting their own "Studies" that proved tobacco didbn't cause
lung cancer, emphasima, or other diseases.Rush Limbaugh STILL
insists smoking tobacco is GOOD for you.I can't understand why
Conservatives fall for the same old business trickery time after time.
Mountanman is incorrect. The idea that global warming is not occurring is not
based on any facts whatsoever. It is a scam invented by fossil fuel companies
and other right-wing extremists who have learned that they can make vast sums of
money by fooling the ignorant masses.Anyone who has studied history
knows that the climate has been changing ever since there was a climate to
change. The history of the Vikings in Greenland and Iceland just one of many
examples. But there has never been a time in Earth’s history when so many
humans share the planet and its limited resources.The ignorant
public must finally reject the rightist fear-mongers. The coal and oil
companies have been enriched enough already.
But when a person's education ends at the fourth grade level, it's
questionable how much value their opinions might have.
Mountanman,Please, please think about your statement “I
learned all I need to know about this issue in the 4th grade”The folks who study this for a living also graduated fourth grade. They have
advanced degrees in the field and devote themselves to it as you do to your
field.The points you bring up are all things that they would
incorporate (along with a thousand others) as part of their studies.Follow the money? Sure. In the tobacco arguments we followed the money as
well. It led back to the invested interests (tobacco companies) funding
“research” to deny the problem existed.Al Gore is worth
$10 million? For our largest oil companies, that is pocket change. Seriously,
who has the most vested interest AND the most money to spend. It isn’t Al
Gore.The concept that there is a worldwide (multi-corporate,
multi-national, and multi-university) conspiracy is beyond belief. In most
things, you can’t get three people to keep a secret for long.Simply put, the likelihood of a conspiracy where all these scientists around
the world fall in line is just beyond belief.
Mountanman is correct. The global warming theory is not based on any facts
whatsoever. It is a scam invented by Al Gore and other left-wing extremists who
have learned that they can make vast sums of money by frightening the ignorant
masses.Anyone who has studied history knows that the climate has
been changing ever since there was a climate to change. The history of the
Vikings in Greenland and Iceland just one of many examples.The
ignorant public must finally reject the leftist fear-mongers. Al Gore has been
enriched enough already.
Twin lights. Rush Limbaugh has nothing to do with my knowledge of CO2 supposedly
causing global warming. I learned all I need to know about this issue in the 4th
grade:#1: The climate is always changing, always has and always will! The
ice age ended because of global climate change and there were no SUV around then
and the explanation by some of "fluctuating dinosaurs" is ridiculous to
say the least.#2: I learned about photosynthesis. Plants absorb CO2 out of
the atmosphere and in the presence of sunlight, synthesize sugars and release O2
back into the atmosphere. Thus the earth (by intelligent design) cleans itself.
The higher the concentration of CO2, the faster the photosynthesis.#3:
Follow the money! Al Gore's estimated net worth is $10 million and still
growing as a result of his selling the "evils" of CO2.#4: Natural
erupting volcanoes, naturally decaying plant material and natural forest fires
produce more CO2 in the atmosphere than all the SUV put together.Therefore, count me as a practical non-believer.
It is said that God uses only natural things to work his will. It is said that
God will someday end the world. Could it be that all He needs to do
is sit back and let humans do all the work by filling the atmosphere with
Mountanman,The economics and multinational participation are both
excellent points. But first we must get beyond the "I have listened to Rush
and he says there is no global warming" mentality.We solve
nothing by burying our heads in the sand and ignoring problems. We will do best
if we go in clear eyed and head on.
What I find ludicrous is the notion that because God put oil and coal on the
earth for us to use, that they can not be misused to the detriment of
mankind.Presumably, God provided nuclear. It is very possible that
mankind could use that to end our existence.I dont know for sure
either way. But using religion to support ones position makes the least sense
In the debate over climate change and how greenhouse gases have contributed to
it, it is interesting that one of the world’s largest fossil fuel
producers apparently agrees with those who claim that climate change is impacted
by man. From their own website we read:"At Chevron, we
recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate
change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a
contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon
dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a
widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse
effects on the environment."Guided by our Seven Principles for
Addressing Climate Change, Chevron is working internationally and at the U.S.
federal and state levels to contribute to climate change policy discussions. Our
stance reflects a balanced approach to addressing climate change through short-
and long-term measures. As we work to reduce GHGs, our collective challenge is
to create solutions that protect the environment without undermining the growth
of the global economy."There seems to be agreement from both
sides of the debate.
It's utterly amazing that so many journalists and others inundate us
regularly with scare stories demanding that the United States take fierce
anti-warming action while scarcely ever pausing to mention the possible futility
of it all — or the costThose costs will get us if we don't
fight back, and those saying so aren't just radio hosts of the kind that
make leftists urge censorship. They are people like William Nordhaus, a Yale
economist. He has calculated what would happen in the long haul if the world
were to implement an anti-warming plan like Al Gore's and has some numbers
to share: Costs would outweigh benefits by $21 trillion. Nordhaus does think
some strategies could be effective, but there are reasons any effort might be of
little avail. If India and China do not join the parade, nothing is accomplished
by any American program, and the Chinese have not been spotted signing up. If
the warming trends aren't bad, it's all a lot of hollering about very
little, and some climatologists say the trends are mild.