Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Complete disconnect between science and media’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 5 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

From NASA's website:
Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Continued from NASA's website:
A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The decade just ended was the warmest on record, and this current year is on track to be the warmest ever. That sounds to me like warming is still going on.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

This is one of those letters that makes me slap my palm to my forehead.

Scientific understanding of the link between atmospheric CO2 and temperature goes back to the 1860's.

Atmospheric CO2 is today at the highest level in the last several hundred thousand years, and climbing fast. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 proves the increase comes from combustion of fossil fuels.

The claim that there has been no warming in the past 16 years and therefore global warming isn't real is completely false, and is based on an egregiously dishonest interpretation of historical temperature data. It's the same as observing that because a 12 year old isn't significantly taller a week after his birthday than he was a week before his birthday that humans don't get taller as they mature.

If you get your "news" about global warming primarily from right wing blogs and AM radio I can see how you'd think global warming isn't real.

If, however, you get your science news from actual professional science journals, you'll get an accurate, fact-based, and completely different education on the subject.

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

Go watch "Chasing Ice." Although I harbor some doubts that even that compelling documentary about the accelerating worldwide meltdown of glaciers would sway the author, who seems firmly entrenched in the global climate change deniers' little camp.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Mr. Thompson,

It is nearly impossible for me to reconcile your statements with reality. You say you have been following the science for decades yet you make statements so easily shown to be false (or at least half truths that obscure the real truth). Sorry.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Bottom line: On October 13, 2012, the Daily Mail posted an article crediting the UK Met Office with saying that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article went viral this week. One day later, however, the UK Met Office disavowed the Daily Mail article, saying it did not say global warming had stopped and was not contacted by the article’s author. According to the UK Met Office and tens of thousands of other scientists worldwide, global temperatures are still rising.-earthsky

UK Met also stated that the graph used in the Daily Mail was not theirs, as claimed by Daily Mail.

Maybe you need to follow these things just a bit closer.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Completely false. 2000 to 2010 was the hottest decade in recorded history. That is indisputable.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I figured out what's wrong.
It's called "selective listening".
This is common with people who only get their information from one or 2 very biased sources --

Try changing the channel ! -- only Rush Limbaugh and some at FauxNews along with other college-drop-outs are denying Global Warming is real.

FYI - Rush Limbaugh denies tobacco causes cancer and lung disease, does that still mean 60 years of Science is wrong and the Media is disconnected as well?!

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

And people like this letter writer wonder why they lost the election???

The sky is round, we aren't the center of the universe, the sun doesn't revolve around us, the earth is older than 5,000 years, and the climate is definitely changing because of man.

It's not really disputable.

Their persistence in denying will all but guarantee more losses in future elections.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The disconnect isn't between science and media. But hey, that's OK. As long as we can maintain deniability, an illusion such as it is, we can indulge our inner lazy and not do a thing about it. That's the utah armchair climatologists' way.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Saw an interesting study by Simply Statistics, showing how Fox News abuses statistics to bend the truth. Fascinating, all the things you can prove when you change the baseline or axis on charts or change the scale to make a decrease look like an increase.

Oh, and the earth is flat.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

To the auther: Please list 5 sources that support your claim.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Gullibility is alive and well in Utah.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

If there was ever a reason for the Senate to ratify the UN treaty to protect those with disabilities it is this letter.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Kalindra" here are some sources:

"Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists" UK Daily Mail

"Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists" from Cambridge Chronical

"1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today" UK Register

"New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" Forbes

"Past warming shows gaps in climate knowledge - study" Reuters

"Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again" WSJ

"The sun shines some light on global warming orthodoxy" National Post

"The Great Global Warming Fizzle" WSJ

"Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer" UK Register

"Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory" American Thinker

"Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong" Science Daily

Ok liberals, are those sufficient to determine that climate change is a natural thing, or at best man has little to do with it. Do you also see that the climate models are wrong, and have yet to give accurate results?

nonceleb
Salt Lake City, UT

No link? You have got to be kidding! Ice cores, which date back tens of thousands of years show the that cooling and warming fluxuations coincide with CO2 levels. I suggest you go see "Chasing Ice" about a photographer, who was a global warming skeptic.

The real disconnect is between science and conservative media.

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

Blah blah, but these same people just know that Obama was born in Kenya, tax cuts increase revenue and that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear bomb hidden somewhere.

They knew all that without proof or consensus but now need the last few scientists employed by the oil companies to agree with the 99.99% that don't work for Big Oil that see the link in burning fossil fuel and climate change.

When will a consensus be necessary for their own tin foil hat theories?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "nonceleb" you are falling for the trap. There is a difference between believing in climate change and believing in man made climate change.

I have not heard of any credible scientist that says that the global climate is not changing. The dispute is what is causing the change. It is man caused or a natural cycle?

The interesting thing about the two viewpoints is that the people who believe that climate change is natural believe that the climate should change, while the people who believe that man is the cause of the climate change want it to remain constant (contrary to past geological evidence).

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

RedShirt,

You're quoting opinion pieces and the right wing echo chamber of denialist talking points - all of which have been thoroughly refuted by actual climate science. Are Forbes, The Daily Mail or the WSJ climate science journals? Not remotely.

But, you do quote an article from Science Daily. Good for you. Did you bother to actually read the entire article? Is there _anything_ in the article that resembled the authors saying "and therefore anthropogenic global warming is not happening"? Nope.

Moreover, here's what the article's primary author, Dr. Gerald Dickens, said in a 2009 TV interview on the subject of his research, "As far global warming, that is just a huge problem. I can give you my own personal opinions. I think it’s going to take a radical view of a change in lifestyle, as well as new technologies. And it’s really going to take a combination of both."

Next time you cite scientists' research as evidence that global warming isn't man-made or siginificant, I challenge you to actually email the authors and ask them if whatever they're saying translates into "I don't believe in global warming." Let us know their response.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Screwdriver" when are the liberals going to realize that scientific studies are not deemed true by a consensus, but are determined true or at least mostly true once they meet a 95% confidence interval for their models?

If a consensus was all that was needed, then using your logic, the Earth is flat, the sun revolves around the sun, the speed of sound could not be broken, man cannot fly, tectonic plates do not exist, women are less capable than men, non-whites are inferior to whites, washing your hands is irrelevant to spreading illness, etc...

The ironic thing is that by declaring a consensus, you inhibit actual discovery because you scare the scientists away from disproving the consensus.

"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual" Galileo Galilei

to comment

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