Comments about ‘Letter: Science helps compromise — let's work for solutions’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Jan. 6 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

"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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Ogden, UT

"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.

Dietrich, ID

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?

Hayden, ID

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 cost
Those 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.

Moab, UT

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.

Ogden, UT

Thank you for providing the perfect example of what I was talking about in my first post.

Ogden, UT

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 become anti-science.

American Fork, UT

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 deny, instead.

one old man
Ogden, UT

A refreshingly wise letter. Somewhat of a rarity around here.

Sensible Scientist
Rexburg, ID

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.

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

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 farce.

one old man
Ogden, UT

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.

Dietrich, ID

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.

Casa Grande, AZ

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?

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY


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 climate change.

Dietrich, ID

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.

Ogden, UT


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.

to comment

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