Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Ease on climate change

Comments

Return To Article
  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 8:36 p.m.

    You're missing an important element, Tyler. Most skeptics agree with every point you've made, particularly those who do climate research for a living. The issue is that in spite of those observations, there still is no CO2 signal in the temperature data, and that means that atmospheric CO2 apparently isn't something we need to worry about.

    Earth's climate system is very complex, but it's also apparently very stable in that it's able to handle the effects of atmospheric CO2 so handily that we can't detect any global effect.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Jan. 28, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 – “using the established modern scientific method there is no link between CO2 and climate change”

    Where do you get this stuff? Please, name the peer reviewed scientific journal.

    And if you believe there is no relationship between a warming planet and CO2, I have a one word response… Venus.

    Here’s a quote from Skeptical Scientist:
    “So we have multiple lines of empirical evidence for CO2 warming. Lab tests show CO2 absorbing longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm that less longwave radiation is escaping to space. Surface measurements detect increased longwave radiation returning back to Earth at wavelengths matching increased CO2 warming. And of course the result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.”

    Come on man, what does your common sense tell you? That we can burn fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate over long periods of time and that somehow this will have no effect on the climate?

    But by all means, if it makes you feel better in your identity, keep believing that climate scientists are a bunch of idiots.

    Last post… reached comment limit.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 28, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    To "Tyler D" so lets get this clear. Eventhough, using the established modern scientific method there is no link between CO2 and climate change, you think that we should adhere to what they say because a bunch of smart people say so.

    If you look at what the prevailing scientists state about climate change, there is no way to disprove it. If the climate warms, it is CO2 driven climate change. If the climate cools, it is CO2 driven climate change. No matter what happens, their theories all state that it is CO2 driven climate change.

    Dr. Brin may point out that disproving a theory is a quicker path to honors, but with climate change, the alarmists are the ones who control the scientific journals and are able to suppress articles that disprove their theories.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Jan. 28, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    @ Redshirt1701 – “"at one time 97% of scientists thought the earth was flat”

    There’s only one problem with your point – science and the scientific method are modern inventions (starting with the philosophical underpinnings of Descartes in the 1600’s). Prior to that time there were no “scientists.” Sure, there were great thinkers but they lived in a world steeped in superstition and dogmatism. And these were not men conducting experiments and following evidence, usually because they lacked the tools (e.g., a microscope).

    So back to today – can science get it wrong, sure. The business of good science is to continually test hypotheses, and as Dr. Brin points out, disproving prevailing theories is often a quicker path to getting prestigious honors than confirming them. But when the evidence gets stronger all the time and more and more scientists reach the same conclusions, I think we are foolish to not listen to what these folks say (and even more foolish to get our “science” from politically motivated non-scientists).

    Despite what the right-wing media would like us to believe, there really are experts who know a great deal more about a given subject than the average Joe (the Plummer).

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 28, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    To "Tyler D" at one time 97% of scientists thought the earth was flat. At anothe time, they thought the universe revolved around the earth. At one time in history, scientists thought there were only 4 elements, earth, wind, fire, water. At another time they thought that nothing could go faster than the speed of sound. Another point in history had scientists saying that nothing travels faster than light.

    There are many instances where a consensus among scientists has been proven wrong. Do believe that the earth is flat and the universe revolves around it?

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 9:46 p.m.

    I keep seeing statements such as "the current evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming", but I don't see any such thing in the science.

    The vast majority of the peer-reviewed papers characterized by commenters here as providing evidence that humans are causing global warming do no such thing. They study things like "The effect of global warming on the migratory patterns of jellyfish". Such papers are useful in that they help us understand how nature adapts to climate change. But it doesn't establish a cause for climate change.

    The computer models were supposed to show how our CO2 emissions have affected the climate. But they've failed badly. Temperatures are significantly lower than the models show they should be. There's no heating of the troposphere, which there should be. There's no statistical correlation between warming and atmospheric CO2. Mann's famous hockey-stick paper relied on faulty statistics and cherry-picking of samples. Briffa's relied on ONE tree to "prove" AGW - of course that didn't pass muster.

    So where's the "overwhelming evidence"? I don't see it.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Jan. 25, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    @ Redshirt1701

    Your questions are intriguing and assuming they have merit (I’m not a scientist and don’t have a quick answer) and are not just politically motivated red herrings that have been answered by scientists already, Dr. Brin would no doubt put you in the category of “skeptic” rather than “denier.”

    And that’s really the point of his paper (distinguishing between the two) and he argues at length that all good scientists welcome good questions; that’s what drives scientific progress. Trying to disprove theories is one of the main aspects of good science.

    However since something like 97% of all climate scientists are overwhelmingly convinced that AGW is real, I wouldn’t get too carried away. And despite your two silly and inflammatory statements (in an otherwise rational post):

    “the problem with the current climate scientists is that they really don't understand man's impact on the climate”

    And calling them

    “AGW alarmists”

    I’m inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people who typically by temperament are not alarmists or even overly emotional.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 25, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    To "Emajor" I am sure that there is not a mote in my eye.

    To "Tyler D" the problem with the current climate scientists is that they really don't understand man's impact on the climate.

    For example, Mars and Neptune's moon Triton have had their climates warming at the same time that the Earth has been warming. They have no explaination besides saying that it is driven by solar activity. They have even reported that the polar ice caps on Mars are shrinking.

    How can Mars and Triton be warming at the same time the earth is warming without all of those humans adding 2% more CO2 into the atmosphere?

    The problem is that the scientists don't have little questions that are still unanswered like David Brin claims. There are huge questions that the AGW alarmists have yet to answer. Questions like, if the little ice age ended in 1850, how do we know that the earth is not warming up to what it should be? How do we know that the warming is not natural since past geological evidence shows that the climate has changed quicker in the past than it currently is changing?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Jan. 25, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    "science isn't about wishes or opinions."

    Indeed it's not Kerry.

    Scientists have been studying the climate for decades and have a tremendously solid understanding how it can change over time, and what causes those changes. Have they proven that CO2 levels will heat the planet in the same way it can be shown that 1+1=2... no. But no science ever proves anything to that degree - it's the difference between deductive and inductive logic.

    Science is about observation and evidence, and the current evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming. And to correct another misstatement in this letter, scientists have been able to observe a climate under the impact of large amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere right in our own neighborhood… it’s called Venus.

    For those interested in the current state of climate science, check out David Brin’s excellent paper “Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers” published in 2010.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 9:47 p.m.

    Bebyebe,
    I certainly agree. But I can't help it. I have a pseudo-academic interest in watching contortions of logic and reasoning and this has proven very very fascinating.

    Redshirt,
    "First I must remove the beam from the eye of this place before I can worry about the mote elesewhere."

    That about says it all right there. Beacon on a hill, light of the world. But are you sure the "mote elsewhere" isn't your own eye?

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 5:40 p.m.

    Emajor: Concur. One shouldn't play with trolls

    One more time: Redshirt you are not a scientist. You don't understand the concept of models and how they explain the natural world.

    You and your ilk only see simple, linear, bimodel relationships. The universe doesn't work that way but if that's what you need to live, so be it.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 24, 2013 4:36 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" what homefield? In journalism there are always more liberals than conservatives. Are these boards meant to be popularity contests, or are they meant to be ways to dispel lies and to discuss the topics at hand? If I get what you are saying, you think that it is better to be popular than to speak the truth.

    To use scriptural reference for why I don't go to a SF or NY newspaper, look at it this way. First I must remove the beam from the eye of this place before I can worry about the mote elesewhere.

    Since you cannot deny or even refute what I last posted, I will assume that you realize that you have no credible evidence to show that reducing the standards to allow publication of poorly conducted scientific research is a good thing.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 3:50 p.m.

    @liberal larry:
    "If the climate isn't warming, why are glaciers and ice sheets melting at record rates?"

    Some aren't. Some are growing.

    Anyway, what's the big deal about warming? Climates have changed many times over the past eons... even when homo sapiens did not roam the earth. What does that tell us?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    RedShirt --

    When you (or Mike Richards, Voice of Reason, J Thompson, etc.)
    Can't get the more likes than us Center-Lefts,
    in your own home field -- the most conservative newspaper in the most conservative state in the Nation...

    That should tell you just exaclt how far-right-wing off the radar you've become.

    Try taking your arguments to the heathens in San Fransico or New York.
    or
    are you too insecure and just fishing for affirmations?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    To "Bebyebe" so what you are saying is that in order to publish climate studies the climatologists had to LOWER the standard from the established scientific norm of 95% CI.

    Think of it this way. Would you trust drivers that only had to pass 25% of the questions on a driver's test more than those who pass it at 75%?

    Why do you accept studies that wouldn't have been published if they met the same standards as nearly every other hard science field?

    To "Emajor" if I passed an article around to all of my buddies that believed the same things that I believe, would you trust that article?

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 11:14 p.m.

    Good letter. Global warming, er, "climate change" is merely a convenient banner for overzealous activists to undermine freedom and capitalism, and have greater control over people's lives.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 10:37 p.m.

    Redshirt,
    "If we followed your flat earth policy and resolved scientific debate with a vote, then the earth is still flat, the universe revolves around the earth, and there are only 4 elements."

    Careful about making broad accusations beyond the scope of inference. It is conservatives who deny the Theory of Evolution for no scientifically justifiable reason. It is conservatives who work tirelessly to rewrite history and science in America's school textbooks to protect their narrow world view. It was conservatives who hired crooked conservative scientists to claim that there were no proven health effects from smoking cigarettes. It is conservatives who lobby to prevent funding for research on gun-related deaths in this country because they are afraid of what the data will show. When it comes to systematically ignoring evidence contrary to their world view and instituting "flat earth policies", there is no one who does it as well as conservatives.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 10:24 p.m.

    Bebyebe,
    I think you are wasting your time debating folks like Redshirt, unfortunately. I tried to have a polite discussion with him about gun control yesterday and ended up getting personally attacked when I didn't agree with his interpretation of facts. Considering insulting terms like "you and your ilk" keep getting thrown around, I don't think an exchange of facts is going to get us anywhere. There may be 13,926 peer review articles on climate change, but if someone isn't going to believe in climate change because of their world view, then there might as well be 0 articles.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 10:00 p.m.

    higv,
    Please learn the difference between climate and weather before you embarrass yourself further. This is a very important distinction regardless of which side of the climate change debate you find yourself on.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 8:26 p.m.

    The entire temperature record should be considered, not just bits and pieces. The earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age 150 or so years ago. Of course we're experiencing record high temperatures - that's to be expected when the planet warms and we don't have records from before the Little Ice Age. To assert that humans are causing the warming is problematic - how can one distinguish between the 100 years of warming before the last 50 years of warming? They look the same on the temperature graph. And that's in line with the fact that nobody has been able to establish a link between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. There just isn't statistical correlation.

    Organizations don't do science, scientists do. There are apparently 13,926 peer-reviewed papers that presume a link between atmospheric CO2 and global climate - hey, they have to if want to be funded - but 0 that have established statistical correlation between climate and CO2. Over 31,000 scientists and and engineers say there is no link.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 5:51 p.m.

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Astronomical Society
    American Chemical Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Physics
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
    British Antarctic Survey
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Environmental Protection Agency
    European Federation of Geologists
    European Geosciences Union
    European Physical Society
    Federation of American Scientists
    Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
    Geological Society of America
    Geological Society of Australia
    Geological Society of London
    International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    National Center for Atmospheric Research
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Royal Meteorological Society
    Royal Society of the UK

    Organizations acknowledge CO2 - global warming link. 13,950 peer review articles of which 24 reject global warming.

    95% correlation not required for scientific confirmation in complex systems such as climate. The world isn't linear redshirt.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 23, 2013 5:32 p.m.

    I enjoy warm weather a lot better than cold weather. Since meteorologists don't get weather right the next day how can they get it right the next century?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 23, 2013 4:58 p.m.

    RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT
    To "Wonder" yes I know that the King and Queen of Spain (not the government of Spain) funded the trip. You see, in Monarchies during that time in history, the kings and queens owned all of the land. They funded things to keep their private enterprises operating.

    =========

    You mean like - in a monarchy, that the King and Queen - who own everything, who rule and reign suporeme ARE the Government RedShirt?
    [and can't see/comprehend that?!]

    Score:

    Wonder - 1
    RedShirt - 0

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    Jan. 23, 2013 4:46 p.m.

    The majority of people accept climate change and most accept it's related to burning of coal. There hasn't been a below average tempeture month for the last 30 years. However they fear the cost of moving to a low carbon life style. It is that fear that politics and greedy executives are using to cloud the issue.

    Many executives and politicians agree off the record that climate change needs urgent attention, but few are prepared to speak up for fear of upsetting "business as usual". This is a fundamental failure of governance – directors and politicians have a responsibility to objectively assess and manage the critical risks. But by acknowledging climate change as a serious risk, they are bound to act, which requires a radical redirection of business with consequences for their short term profit and income.

    Their solution “denial”, irrespective of the consequences. This denial flows down the line to the right-wing media and AM shock jocks to create confusion.

    However let’s look at the insurance companies, the actuaries are factoring in the costs associated with climate change, that is increased weather extremes causing insurance losses.

    Can we have a discussion on solutions?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    To "Wonder" yes I know that the King and Queen of Spain (not the government of Spain) funded the trip. You see, in Monarchies during that time in history, the kings and queens owned all of the land. They funded things to keep their private enterprises operating.

    What is something that private industry won't fund? They funded railways, and would have eventually connected the continent, the biggest leaps in aviation has come from private industry, the same for computers, nuclear power, semi conductors, medical research. Private companies build highways, but because of the government have not constructed interstate highways (Toll roads).

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    @RedShirt -- Little history lesson -- Do you know who paid for Columbus' voyage? Answer -- the King and Queen of Spain (i.e. the government). It wasn't some private entrepreneur, sorry to tell you. Kinda like today when government funds some things that private industry won't, which then turns around and benefits all citizens. (e.g. the transcontinental railway, advances in aviation, the computer, nuclear power, lasers, semiconductor advances, interstate highways, the internet, lots of medical research, etc., etc.)

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 3:18 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" again, you are wrong. The " close minded, prserve the status quo, change-nothing, question nothing, do nothings" people have been found to be liberals.

    Look at the policies that your ilk wants to impose. It is nothing more than joining the "status quo" of europe.

    You do not believe in change, and attack any who question the changes you want to make.

    Read the following to understand conservatives better, and see how they are more open minded and doing more than your ilk.

    "Republicans more open-minded, better informed than Democrats" in the Daily Caller

    "Online, liberals far less tolerant than normal people" IBD

    "People Choose News That Fits Their Views" at Live Science where they found that Conservatives read opposing views.

    Actually Comlumbus was a CAPITALIST. He was looking for a way to beat out the competition to make trade with the Asia cheaper. Not a progressive move since it would harm existing state business interests.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 23, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT

    If we followed your flat earth policy and resolved scientific debate with a vote, then the earth is still flat, the universe revolves around the earth, and there are only 4 elements.

    =========

    Flat Earthers, Earth is at the Center, 4 element, God made it so, never question the Church -- close minded, prserve the status quo, change-nothing, question nothing, do nothings = are Conservatives. close minded
    That's WHAT Conservative means.

    Columbus was an Open minded, enlightened, Question everything [including Religous Dogma], PROGRESSIVE.

    Liberal.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    It's good to see the climate scientists writing letters and responding to them.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    To "liberal larry" maybe you need to go and get your eyes checked. The article said that the climate is changing, which is true. The article also said that so far there is no scientifically proven link between CO2 and climate change. This is also true.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" was the link between smoking and lung cancer made by consensus or scientific proof?

    If we followed your flat earth policy and resolved scientific debate with a vote, then the earth is still flat, the universe revolves around the earth, and there are only 4 elements.

    To "Blue" it is true, none of the studies out there trying to link CO2 to climate change do so withing the 95% confidence interval which is used to establish scientific connections.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 23, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    Our air pollution is worse for EVERYONE than smoking is for the few who choose it.

    You have no Free Agency, and no right to clean air.

    You'd think the Word of Wisdom and Free Agency would have most Mormons supporting cleaner air?

    But sadly too many value Party Politics and their AM radio shows over all Common sense, reasoning, and even Spiritual advise on the matter.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    Ease up on climate change?

    I can't see the mountains in the SLC valley...

    when I am INSIDE the SLC valley.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    Kerry,

    No evidence connecting human CO2 emissions and climate change?

    Then you're not bothering to look.

    Google "human co2 related to climate" and watch what happens.

    Simple ignorance is not a sin, but willful, beligerant ignorance is.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 23, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    Open Minded Mormon,

    That would be because of the lack of scientific consensus on smoking . . .

    I think the issue here is that we sometimes want to wish away that which does not fit our model of the world. We fear control if the answer is something we don’t want so we avoid even considering that which could be negative to our currently held views.

    It is not that govt. control and the proper response mechanisms to climate change are not real questions (and questions worth debating) but we never get to that debate because we are too busy burrowing deeper and deeper into denial so that we never have to deal with such questions directly.

    Avoidance by evasion.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    Global warming doesn't necessarily mean it will be warmer in the winter. It does mean that seasons will be more severe. Look at our last summer! Hot hot hot! Look at our winter. Cold cold cold.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    @higv
    "Larry how do you explain this major cold front we are having."

    Cold front? We're sitting in a ridge of high pressure. When the snow comes tomorrow we'll be warmer than today. I'm going to just change your question to "explain this 12F below average cold we are having this month".

    Cold days still happen with global warming. As cold as it's been we haven't even been within 5 degrees of a record low any of the days this month. We set/tied 14 record highs last year. Think of it this way. The Earth has warmed roughly 2F in the mid-latitudes the past 100 years. 100 years ago we'd have heat waves and cold... whatever extended cold is called. We still have those ups and downs, it's just that you can think of all those days as being 2F warmer than they'd be without global warming. So that 14 degree below average day in 1900 would be a 12 degree below average day now (or 14 below a 2F higher average).

    @Christian 24-7
    "#1 Global warming is questionable, scientists do NOT concur. "

    Anthropogenic global warming skeptics don't even argue that global warming isn't occurring.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Yeah...I have heard all kinds of statements attributed to Rush Limbaugh and then broad-brushed to any Republican or conservative. It was a successful campaign tactic when one idiot GOP candidate, Todd Akin, talked about legitimate rape.

    I guess if that is a fair tactic then all Liberals and Democrats believe that islands will tip over if there are too many people on one side.

    Why don't we raise the level of dialog here?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 23, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    Twin Lights
    Louisville, KY
    How well I recall the claims made over and over again that, despite much higher incidence of cancer among smokers, that there was no direct or causal link.

    Yeah, right.

    7:45 a.m. Jan. 23, 2013

    ==============

    Funny and sadly ironic you should mention that...

    Becasue their Conservative HERO and GOP figurehead -- Rush Limbaugh -- still, to this very day, tells them tobacoo does not cause cancer, and that smoking is actually GOOD for you.

    [Because - ALL science is wrong, and only he, the Hajha-Rushdie, the college drop out - is right.]

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    Put your head in the sand repubs!

    The earth is flat.

    And the sun revolves around the earth.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    Living humans and all other living animals produce and exhale CO2. How do you propose to stop that? Legislation? No one is allowed to work or exercise? Reduce the population by killing? Obviously can't be done.

    Flaws to global warming alarmists theories:

    #1 Global warming is questionable, scientists do NOT concur.

    #2 IF warming WERE occurring, there is no verifiable link between man's chosen activities and global warming. There is all evidence to show the earth warms and cools naturally, in cycles.

    Paranoid alarmist chicken littles are wasting our time and resources with this notion of global warming.

    These are the same folks who sign online petitions to outlaw dihydrogen monoxide.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    Yeah, right. Come back and tell us this again fifty years from now.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 23, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    How well I recall the claims made over and over again that, despite much higher incidence of cancer among smokers, that there was no direct or causal link.

    Yeah, right.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 23, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    When you look at the 100 year charts for global temperatures there is no doubt of warming. When you look at just the last 15 years there appears to be a level period. But there are other level periods in the steep increase of over a longer period, there are even decreases for several years.

    Cherry picking doesn't make science. They can't say there is no warming over 20 years or 60 years or 100 years. There is substantial increases for those time frames. It's just pathetic really to even contemplate when you look at all the numbers together.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 23, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    liberal larry: I hope you didn't strain a hamstring making that logical leap. You sound like one of the many armchair scientists who read editorial commentary rather than scientific studies and then regurgitate it as scientific truth.

    The author of the letter is correct (to the best of my knowledge). There has been no credible scientific study closing all the links for global warming scare-mongers.

    I'm just glad I'm not on trial for my life to be judged by a group of peers comprised of those who develop iron-clad and unchangeable decisions based on nothing more than hearsay and conjecture.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 23, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    Larry how do you explain this major cold front we are having. I would much rather have milder winters myself.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Jan. 23, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    If the climate isn't warming, why are glaciers and ice sheets melting at record rates?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 23, 2013 6:59 a.m.

    The ocean absorbs a lot of Co2.

    Sure, you can change the atmosphere and nothing will happen. Keep believing.