Published: Sunday, Jan. 6 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
"We need to emphasize that science isn't about wishes or opinions;
it's about hard evidence. Why not accept it, reject disinformation and work
together for solutions?"Because the lemmings who drink Rush,
Sean, and Fox daily would then have to admit that they were wrong. And if they
were wrong on Global Warming then they're worried that they might have to
admit that they have been wrong about other things as well... such as... WMDs in
Iraq, socialized medicine, Evolution, unions, tax cuts, guns, marriage, and
supply side economics.
Great letter.Climate science is complex, but not so complex that
conclusions can't be drawn with a high degree of certainty about the
significant role that human activities play in climate change. If
honesty matters to you then you have to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific
evidence that global warming is real, significant, and caused by us.We should be debating what we're going to do about it and how, instead of
wasting precious time on willfully ignorant denialists.
"Why not accept it, reject disinformation and work together for
solutions"Because most people that question climate change
science do so out of fear of the policy implications. Never since the Theory of
Evolution have so many people uneducated in the scientific method suddenly taken
an armchair interest in a science topic. And for the same reason: it challenges
their belief system and could result in public policy they don't like.If climate change skeptics do no want draconian federal carbon emission
limits, it would be wiser for them to make the economic argument rather than
question a body of scientific evidence they have neither read nor fully
understand. Accepting human-caused global warming while believing carbon limits
would be too damaging to the economy is a valid viewpoint.
Science is a reinforcer rather than enforcer and the majority are not always
right. Global warming is a way to control peoples lives like the overpopulation
fanatics were and are. We can't control the climate and it is pretty cold
right now were i am at. Why let it control us?
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. Another
scientist's view is Patrick Michaels who was at the University of Virginia
for 30 years. His study convinces him nothing disastrous lies around yonder
bend. Another is Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
He believes gloomy computer simulations are bogus, that the climate changes we
are seeing could be more natural than man-made and, like Michaels, that no
intolerable warming lays ahead.
Trial lawyers have a term "juke box witness" .You put in your nickle and
the expert (read scientists) will sing any tune you want. It is true.
higv,Thank you for providing the perfect example of what I was talking
about in my first post.
There you go, mountanman, now you're getting closer. You don't think
the benefits will outweigh the costs. That's a valid concern and should be
part of the discussion. But you don't know anything about the science, so
you shouldn't weigh in on that part. Conservatives
shouldn't be afraid to say "the body of evidence strongly suggests that
anthropogenic carbon emissions are driving the observed changes in global
temperatures. But it will harm the economy too much to rectify this. I
don't believe the benefits outweigh the economic costs". That is at
least an honest argument.
Looking back to what worked in the past---"The problem in the
1980s was that American power plants were sending up vast clouds of sulfur
dioxide, which was falling back to earth in the form of acid rain, damaging
lakes, forests and buildings across eastern Canada and the United States. The
squabble about how to fix this problem had dragged on for years." HW Bush decided to address the problems of acid rain. Cap and Trade became
the mechanism as part of the Clean Air Act. "Almost 20 years
since the signing of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the cap-and-trade system
continues to let polluters figure out the least expensive way to reduce their
acid rain emissions. As a result, the law costs utilities just $3 billion
annually, not $25 billion, according to a recent study in the Journal of
Environmental Management; by cutting acid rain in half, it also generates an
estimated $122 billion a year in benefits from avoided death and illness,
healthier lakes and forests, and improved visibility on the Eastern Seaboard.
(Better relations with Canada? Priceless.")(Smithsonian, "The
Political History of Cap and Trade")Too bad Republicans have
If we accept the science there will be an implied expectation that we do
something about it. That's what we really want to avoid. It's easy to
A refreshingly wise letter. Somewhat of a rarity around here.
What the letter writer fails to mention is that global temperatures have not
increased since 1998. That is an undisputed fact, not related to the survey of
articles cited.It's amazing that some will use anything to
claim global warming EXCEPT a thermometer.
Oh great! The scientists, who make a living studying global warming, don't
question it whether global warming exists, except for 24 of them. The 24 for
have looked at their thermometer data and have a conscience. The rest are afraid
there won't be jobs for climate change scientists if they admit it is a
Those who choose to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it's not
getting warmer will probably wake up only when their tail feathers ignite.
Environmentalists are hypocrites Don't want to change there lifestyle want
us to change ours. They are not interested in compromise but in control that
gives them empowerment. That is were global warming occurs.
So a geologist disagrees with climatologist data. That's great.
I'll ask my foot doctor about heart disease next time I see her.You realize it's oil companies that hire geologists right?
Mountanman,Yours is the only logical point I can brook from the
Anti-Climate Change crowd.Those who argue it is not happening
because of this or that issue ignore the fact that climate scientists have every
single fact they mention plus thousands of others.Those who argue
that scientists are willfully ignoring evidence (lying) are buying into a vast
global conspiracy that is so large and complex as to be beyond reason.But your point about the economic tradeoffs is cogent – that is, what
are the benefits of fighting climate change vs. not doing so? And, if we do
choose to fight, to what level should we do so?Note that I
don’t believe it is futile to fight climate change. Nor that it is
necessarily uneconomic to do so, but it is something that bears significant
analysis.Note that there are studies that show we should respond to
These past few days it hasn't been that warm. Going outside I wish it
would get warmer as that weather is more pleasent. I would travel the Sahara
before I traveled the Antartic.
@ higv: Yes, because we all know "global climate change" only refers to
temperatures in Idaho and Utah.
higv,It's winter, higv. Winter. Winter is colder than summer.
Scientists aren't arguing that winter will no longer be colder than summer.
I'm going to say this as respectfully as I can. It is people
with your rudimentary understanding of science combined with your stubbornness
and resistance to information which challenges your world view who have made
scientific progress more difficult throughout the centuries. Your frame of mind
would have argued that the sun revolved around the earth in Galileo's time.
People sharing these traits are still trying to keep Evolution out of school
text books. Twin Lights & I have tried to present a rational
framework from which you could express skepticism of policies related to climate
change, but you aren't budging. Every comment just keeps getting more
irrational and illogical.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments