Published: Monday, May 13 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
The World just hit 400 parts per million, every year it keeps going up. Every
year the temperature records somewhere in the World are broken and the Artic sea
ice reaches a new summer low.Heavenly Father gave us a world to care
for, he only gave us one world! I don't think he intended us to use up all
the resources so quickly with abandon! Will we continue to listen to the Oil and
Coal companies or the science. Prime Minister M Thatcher (right Wing as they
come) listened to the science on climate change, admittedly she was a Chemistry
graduate, not an armchair climatologist. Just a thought.
Given this letter will cause a huge reaction let me just say that refutation of
the science requires us to believe one of the following:That
thousands of scientists in nearly every nation, culture, language, and of every
political stripe are all being persuaded to go against the "real"
science because of money or some secret cabal of fantastic scope. So powerful
is either the money or the cabal that virtually none go against it.Of course, scientists rarely go into science for money. And, given that even
crime syndicates have folks who leave on peril of their lives, a cabal would
have to have much more persuasion than even such syndicates can muster.ORThat scientists with advanced degrees who study this for a
living are ignorant of simple "facts" that talk show hosts and other
amateurs can cite. Any one of these "facts" entirely dismisses the
conclusions of the science or shows that the trends we are experiencing are
completely natural.Of course the question here is how could the
scientists have missed this key and obvious evidence? To say there is no
incentive to be the contrarian belies the facts of science as it is practiced.
Human beings are just one of many animal species that have inhabited the Earth.
Mother Nature has always culled those species that extend the carrying capacity
of their environment. Critics of human caused global warming are powerful and
rich. It's those forces that seem likely to lead us down the similar path
of thousands of other animal species that failed to adapt and now are extinct.
If a person is so worried about climate change and what the Oil and Gas industry
is doing why don't they go find a product or process that can give the
industry some real competition? I think wind mills are useful and solar panels
can be if they are used the right way. But wind and solar will not compete with
oil and gas.I hear so many people say that we need to invest in new
technology. well that's great but who's money? Are they willing to put
their money on the line? maybe its time some of these people try to do something
themselves rather than expect the government to do something.
"well that's great but who's money?"If the
government wisely seeds potential breakthroughs, that is a plus.Obviously every attempt will succeed. But the "who's money"
question is a good one.Now, I am sure that people will cite
Solyndra. And thats fine. It is a good example of poor execution and a waste
of taxpayer money.But, that does not mean that we throw in the
towell.How about Natural gas. How about the Govt seed some money to
start installing fueling stations along the major E/W and N/S corridors. Look
at the Pickens plan. If we got the long haul 18 wheelers on Nat Gas, maybe we
would pass the tipping point.Unfortunately, our politicians, both R
and D, push what gets them the biggest return in the way of campaign funds.Why is it so hard to see that the Money corrupts our politicians to the
point where they do the wrong things constantly?Get the union and
corporate big money out of the election process and much of the other problems
will fix themselves.
Proponents of man made global warming are left wing, anti-capitalism socialists
bent on implementing carbon taxes as a way to enforce their Marxists (communist)
economic control of the world. In other words, man made global warming really is
a hoax promoted by junk science. The reality is the earth has actually been
cooling since 1996. For examples, the East Coast of the US and Russia both
experienced a colder than normal winter this year. Global warming caused that
too? Advocates might be more believable if their "solution" was
something other than them getting money (carbon taxes)and he rest of us paying
it. The most effective way to spot a hoax is follow the money! Those that are
duped pays it and those that perpetrate it gets it! Happens every time.
"Proponents of man made global warming are left wing, anti-capitalism
socialists bent on implementing carbon taxes as a way to enforce their Marxists
(communist) economic control of the world."Well then, G HW Bush
was an "anti-capitalism socialist" looking to enforce his Marxist
economic control of the world.Cap and Trade was initially called
emissions trading. It was introduced by G HW Bush as a way to combat acid rain.
And it was very successful in doing so.Google
"political History of Cap and Trade" at Smithsonian dot com to verify.
Acid rain? Acid rain is caused by nitrogen or sulphur oxides, not CO2! Nice try
but wrong again!
@Twin Lights – “Given this letter will cause a huge reaction let me
just say that refutation of the science requires us to believe one of the
following:”And that is exactly the dots that few seem to
connect… especially (it goes without saying) on the Right.@Mountanman – “Proponents of man made global warming are left
wing, anti-capitalism socialists bent on implementing carbon taxes as a way to
enforce their Marxists (communist) economic control of the world... The most
effective way to spot a hoax is follow the money!”It should
also go without saying that you can be almost guaranteed to be on the wrong side
of an issue when your opening salvo (masquerading as an argument) is a blatant
ad hominem assault. And by all means, follow the money… PLEASE!!!
@Twin LightsLet's get current. The consensus has gone from
being alarmed to being "puzzled." Climatologists are wondering why
temperatures in the real world are so much lower than the climate models had
predicted, and what it is they don't understand about the Earth's
climate that they had thought they understood. Temperatures are threatening to
fall off the low range of what the models admit as possibility.The
history of science is full of examples of scientists being all wrong together.
That's the nature of the game. They posit a hypothesis, and then design an
experiment to test it. In this case, the hypothesis was the climate model. It
was found to be inadequate when it came to predicting actual results.Science fads come and go, and the "consensus" was never as solid as
you make it out to be. We must take good care of the Earth, but that
doesn't mean we have to jump on every fad that comes along.
@ Tyler, "A blatant ad hominem". Thank you! You perfectly described this
entire global warming hoax. And as far as following the money, the best answer
to that debate is who would pay carbon taxes and who would get the
money=following the money! Al Gore has done very well hasn't he, speaking
of a "blatant ad hominem"?
"Acid rain is caused by nitrogen or sulphur oxides, not CO2!"Good move. When you are wrong on the facts, change the discussion."People now call that system "cap-and-trade." But back then the
term of art was "emissions trading," The immediate aim was
to break the impasse over acid rain. But global warming had also registered as
front-page news for the first time that sweltering summer of 1988; according to
Krupp, EDF and the Bush White House both felt from the start that emissions
trading would ultimately be the best way to address this much larger
challenge.Excerpts from Smithsonian Facts from solid
Who should we believe?....98% of the world's scientists,
universities and our own personal observations, or(3) am radio
college drop-out snake oil salesmen hacks who will say ANYTHING for a $buck ?[If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say it was cheaper and easiler
to pay off greedy radio rodeo clowns and fooling 10 million listeners, than
paying off 10,000 colleges and Universities world-wide to twist Science.]
@Mountanman – “blatant ad hominem". Thank you! You perfectly
described this entire global warming hoax. Couldn’t agree
more… it’s what you find consistently and ubiquitously from the side
without science on their side. @Mountanman – “who would
pay carbon taxes and who would get the money=following the money! Al Gore has
done very well hasn't he…”So is man-made climate
change a hoax on scientific grounds or by the “follow the money”
logic? As far as means to address it, I have seen a wide variety of
proposals ranging from (admittedly) big government type tax approaches to
self-contained (no money flowing to outside programs) scenarios like
cap-and-trade. I have also seen tax proposals that simply channel all revenue
directly back to the gas consumer, the logic being that this will only drive a
change in behavior and not increase government tax revenue.So if we
adopted one of the “revenue neutral” approaches simply meant to make
burning fossil fuels more expensive relative to alternatives, is it still a
hoax?And thank you for reiterating the first point by name dropping
@Alyssa Gill "...2012 was the warmest American year on record...."...but globally was beaten by 1998, 2010, 2005, 2002, 2009, 2007, 2003,
and 2006. Most importantly, 1998 is still the warmest year on record, and the
trend is ever-so-slightly downward. We've gone 15 years without any
significant warming.This is why climatologists are puzzled. It is
isn't what the alarmists had predicted.Our mistake was in
accepting the climate projections as if they were an experimental result, when
they were only a hypothesis. The actual experiment is showing different results
than were anticipated.
Nate – “The history of science is full of examples of scientists
being all wrong together.”That’s a fair point but
applied to this issue, taking a status quo approach may lead to big trouble.First, many of the solutions are things we should simply be doing anyway
(or should we continue supporting petro-oligarchs many of whom hate us?), and
not only will some of the solutions not harm the economy, they could have
tremendous upside potential.Second, the risks of doing nothing range
from no harm to catastrophic, with even the most conservative scientists saying
we are likely to see some negative and costly effects. Do we really want to roll
the dice like this on our only home?Third, on almost every other
issue the innate conservative mindset is to tread lightly, proceed with caution,
and be generally (socially) risk adverse. I hardly think that mindset is best
represented by slogans like “drill baby drill!” At least one would
have thought so back in the days when conservatives’ main concerns were
tradition and societal cohesion, versus what it is today – the idolatrous
worship of the almighty dollar.
MountanmanHayden, IDAl Gore has done very well hasn't he,
speaking of a "blatant ad hominem"?9:23 a.m. May 13, 2013============ Ya, speaking of a "blatant ad
hominem"...Al Gore made his money just like YOU advocate, the
good old fashion CAPTIALIST way, the Stock Market.Mostly via Apple
stock.It had Nothing to do with global warming or tax credits, and everything to do with guys like you buying iPods, iPads, and SmartPhones.
Global warming is a myth because glenn beck says so. And it's all because
the thermometers weren't calibrated properly so it's actually getting
Can anybody tell me where the 98% consensus comes from? The best I could find is
a poorly written survey that would lead even a right wing nut job to agree with
climate change. Many of my thoughts on the whole climate change come
from my 3 university professors who study this thing every day. They essentially
taught that climate change is happening, that CO2 is helping (not causing) the
change, and not sure how much impact co2 actually has.
"Many of my thoughts on the whole climate change come from my 3 university
professors who study this thing every day."Care to name those
"3 university professors who study this thing every day"?and
point to their studies?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments