Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Global warming action

Comments

Return To Article
  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 14, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    I am not sure how we should judge climate change, the successor to global warming.

    1. Any conclusion based on records kept must by taken with some salt, we have only been keeping records world wide for what, 150 years? The Earth is how old? So we are only seeing a small portion of a grand picture. Maybe we are a bump on a rather large curve, graphically speaking.

    2. Is carbon the villain? Computer models say so, but I have also heard "garbage in, garbage out" as referenced to computer models, are we imputing the correct data to identify carbon as the culprit? Is it the only factor?

    3. Speaking of other factors, what about solar radiation, is it a constant or a variable?

    4. Greenland used to be called 'vine-land' or some such title as it was warm enough to grow grapes, or so I recall elementary school classes. Maybe we have been in an abnormally cold cycle and are returning to a former 'normal'.

    5. I am of the opinion that alarmists seem to ring the town bell to alarm the citizens in order to sell their particular brand of snake oil cure(s).

  • booshway Woods Cross, UT
    May 14, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    CO2 is a natural element. The amount of CO2 has been higher than now and lower than now. The temperature of the earth varies all the time. The more CO2 the better for plants. Increased plants and animals are a result of warming. Increased CO2 is the result of the increased plant and animal life dying off and decomposing. Increased CO2 follows periods of warming. We have had both sustained periods of cooling and sustained periods of warming just in the last century. The University of East Anglica and others falsified data to bolster the AGW "theory". Scientists can be corrupted by money - it sustains their jobs! Consensus is not the scientific way.
    Facts are facts.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 14, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    "overwhelming consensus that global warming is happening"

    The only overwhelming consensus is from Al Gore ...and that will continue as long as he continues to make millions off of his propaganda campaign of global warming. The real "inconvenient truth" is that Al lied and his little campaign is backed by bad science. By the way ... notice how all the foaming at the mouth by the left has died out over global warming since it first spun up a few years ago.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 14, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" let me be simple. We know that the temperatures on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and other bodies within the solar system are warming, using similar techniques to what we have here. Does it really matter how far back the records go, because if you look at climate records since about the year 500, we are still in a cool period and are warming back up to the appropriate temperature.

    Don't you find it interesting that they the end of the "Little Ice Age" as the baseline for global warming? If our baseline is the end of an cold period, shouldn't we look at a longer period so that we can see temperatures before the ice age?

    You should take a look at the distribution of the weather stations that are used for the models. They don't track the air temperature over the oceans, nor do they have many sensors in the polar regions, Africa, south America, and Australia. We only have accurate data since 1979 when the satellites were put into orbit and began to measure temperatures around the entire globe. The interesting thing is that the satellite data shows no warming in 33 years.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 14, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT

    You should read up about there is warming on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and other bodies within the solar system. How can those bodies be warming at the same time the Earth is warming if the warming is due to man produced CO2?

    8:07 a.m. May 14, 2013

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

    How did they know what the tempertures were on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and other bodies within the solar system from say 1690-2013 ?

    We've only been keeping records at Salt Lake international airport since 1961.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 14, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    Re: "Most Americans have drawn the right conclusions . . . ."

    And that's what galls the radical greenies so much. It's just sad that so much is being made over a genuine non-issue.

    Is the world warming? Probably, at least since the Little Ice Age ended.

    Do our activities contribute? Probably. Some tiny percentage of the warming since 1850 is likely attributable to radiative forcing produced by CO2 we've released into the atmosphere.

    But, suggestions we can change that percentage, or that we should bankrupt our society or reorder our culture to do so, are simply unsupported.

    Anthropogenic global warming, if it exits, is such a nuanced and subtle effect that it must be teased from raw data that actually show a slight cooling over the last 80 years. And, it bedevils theorists, since it has yet to be effectively or reliably modeled.

    Add raw-data cooling, Antarctic ice expansion, a 17-year AGW "pause," the satellite data, and sea-level constancy, and the issue clears considerably -- AGW panic is more religious crusade, than scientific phenomenon.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 14, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    To "Tyler D" you still have not followed your own advice. You have shown that you refuse to look at who is funding the AGW studies that claim that CO2 is the driver of global warming.

    Answer these questions, and your eyes might be opened:

    Who is funding the AGW studies? What do they have to gain from the AGW studies?

    You should read up about there is warming on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and other bodies within the solar system. How can those bodies be warming at the same time the Earth is warming if the warming is due to man produced CO2?

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 13, 2013 10:09 p.m.

    @Twin Lights "Sea ice is decreasing and dramatically so."

    As I said, it's good to stay current. After the near-record minimum in 2012, what did we have this past winter? The fastest refreeze on record. More ice gain than we've seen in any previous year. The Arctic Ocean now has plenty of ice. NOAA needs to update its website.

    Meanwhile, the ice area in the Antarctic has been above normal every day now for over a year.

    Keep in mind that the satellite data goes back only to 1980. Three decades is minuscule when compared with the age of the earth. No one really knows yet what "normal" is, or what the past extremes were.

    We do know that when ice is removed from the surface, the ocean radiates more heat, thus regulating the earth's temperature in ways perhaps not anticipated by alarmists.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    May 13, 2013 8:55 p.m.

    If you took every body in the whole world put them in Texas, every one would have enough space to live fine. As I compare Texas to the whole world it's a pin head in comparison. Th think that a pin head of people can change any thing is doubtful. To say ay thing about Global worming isn't man made is like saying I don't like children. To say anything about children is like saying you don't like life. If you don't like life is saying you don't believe in God. I smoke cigarettes. I know the game their playing. Shame on then and allow me my Free Agency. Belief is only what you can count on or depend on.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 13, 2013 8:24 p.m.

    Nate,

    From the NOAA website: "The sea ice area for the Arctic shows near-record minimums since 2002. . . . The recent years represent a unique event because they show a year-to-year persistence of minimum ice extents . . . Sea ice area is now significantly below the level of the 1980s and earlier."

    Sea ice is decreasing and dramatically so.

    Redshirt,

    Are you saying that NASA endorses climate change? Also, is that a net increase in farmland or that some land becomes arable and other farmland loses utility?

    Thinkin\' Man,

    Search for Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change (at the NASA website). The trend is clear.

    Mountanman,

    No we are not left wing, anti-capitalists.

    " . . . we must clean our air, and we must address the issue of global climate change. We must also act in a serious and responsible way, given the scientific uncertainties. While these uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the human factors that contribute to climate change. Wise action now is an insurance policy against future risks." That was George Bush. Reagan and Thatcher were willing to consider climate issues.

    Yes, there are nuts on the climate change side. But all issues have them.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 13, 2013 7:28 p.m.

    Global Warming has degenerated into a total political game to be exploited for political gain and economic gain. It's real, but the people pushing it the hardest don't really care. They only pull it out when they need to win some votes or make money.

    If it's not mainly about politics... why did we get 2-3 letters about it in the DMN every day leading up to the 2008 election... and as soon as the election was over, even though nothing changed... these people went silent?

    If you really care... you care whether a Democrat OR Republican is in the White House. People who give it a rest just because there's a Democrat in the White House may not even be able to admit it to themselves... but it's obviously more about politics than it is about the planet.

    If you're just as vocal whether there's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House... I respect you. There's not many like you out there.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 13, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    @atl134 "...those who think climate change is a hoax never seem to point out this significant underestimate."

    So sea ice is yet another thing the computer models got wrong. Did they get anything right?

    @HS Fan "Mother Nature has always culled those species that extend the carrying capacity of their environment."

    Carrying capacity is a limit. Mother Nature has never seen a species "extend" it.

    @Tyler D "Leave your engine running in a closed garage...."

    How did you get your car to emit CO2? Mine emits CO. I'm kind of jealous.

    We're enjoying all the lectures about science, though. We really are.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    Mountanman
    The famous quote you use "A fool and his money are soon parted" should be adapted for this discussion. It should be "a fool and his money are a good party". In our case the fools throwing the party are the oil and gas industries and we're all sucking down their petrol puries at a glutenous rate. The smart folks are the ones looking for cabin and beach front property in Greenland.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 13, 2013 4:05 p.m.

    1.Leave your engine running in your closed garage a ½ hour if you believe that, and…

    CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) does not equate to CO (Carbon Monoxide) maybe this is where all the hysteria about CO2 comes from.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 13, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    To "atl134" according to NASA, if by the year 2050 the average temperature has increased by 0.5 degrees C then the Earth would be capable of producing 135 million tons of additional food.

    Why do you want to have future generations starve? Why are you against global warming and the ability to produce more food for the world's growing population?

    You also realize that we don't actually know what the arctic ice levels should be since we only have been accurately measuring the extent of the ice sheet since 1979. You know, that period when we had several years of extremely cold winters and had unusually high amounts of ice. How do we know what the ice levels should be?

    The other question is how do we know what the CO2 levels are or even should be? Right now there is only 1 data point being taken for atmospheric CO2, and it is doing it through indirect means. Other research shows that the actual atmospheric CO2 is more variable than the accepted data point shows. Read about direct chemical readings for CO2 measurement and how the data points being used may actually be reporting data that is too high.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 13, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    Climate has natural cycles and El Nino-La Nina events. They, scientists, shouldn't be surprised by natural phenomena from the history of the earth, we've known about for decades.

    But they are.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 13, 2013 2:55 p.m.

    Why is sea ice melting in the Artic a problem in peoples minds, when it has been melted before in history. Glaciers are larger now than they were 8,000 years ago? Carbon levels have been as much as 10 times what they are now, the earth didn't burn up.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 13, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today.

    From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea level today.

    The period 900 - 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels.

    Hansen from NASA says the models of earth warming are not in line with what is happening. The earth has been warmer than now, and sea levels have been significantly higher. Because Bangladesh is so low is no argument for pretending to be God. CO2 is a good thing at double or triple what it is now. Hansen says the CO2 amounts added to the atmosphere have not raised the temps as the models show. Again the real question is what is the Temperature AGW advocates are trying to achieve?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 13, 2013 2:43 p.m.

    There is an old adage that really holds true in this discussion; a fool and his money are soon parted. One can recognize who is the fool by those who will part with their money in the useless solution to an invented problem; carbon taxes. P.T. Barnum was right when he said, "Another sucker is born every minute".

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    May 13, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    What warming? According to all the experts, global average temperature has been statistically flat since 1998. And yet special interests like this letter writer, who make their living on the bogus "consensus" argument, use a different statistic about the warmest years ever.

    So CO2 has hit 400 ppb and temperatures have NOT risen. Doesn't that tell you something important?

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    May 13, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    interested
    Logan, UT
    @atl134. My Professors were very clear.

    Joe Blow They teach at USU. Where do you get your info from?

    2:09 p.m. May 13, 2013

    ===========

    Really?
    Then your Professors aren't being clear NOR truthful...

    The Utah State University Climate Center's found that over the past 40 years, Utah has warmed twice as fast as the global average. Both have ominous implications for our future economic and population growth. But many people — including most Utah political leaders — will shrug this off, doubting climate change because of arguments against it in the mass media, including the Internet.

    Our annual snowpack is shrinking, according to Robert Gillies, State Climatologist for Utah. After studying mounds of data and compensating for weather cycles, he recently announced that Utah's precipitation ratio has shifted by 9 percent. ~ source, Deseret News April 25, 2012

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 13, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    @RedShirt – “To "Tyler D" you should follow your own advice…”

    I have and frankly was astounded by what I found… oil companies and even some Middle Eastern governments funding not only “research” that would disprove AGW (with little to show for it), but billions of dollars in propaganda (including large stock ownership in a certain television network named after a cunning red predator) meant to confuse, distort and obfuscate the science (which kudos to them as it looks like money well spent).

    To your point about governments funding real scientific research, please refer to the earlier comments by Twin Lights… the global conspiracy necessary to pull off what you suggest would be unprecedented, at least to anyone not easily given to the conspirator’s particular brand of connect-the-dots paranoia.

    And to all those who keep saying CO2 is a natural substance and nothing to worry about (like the foremost scientifically minded politician of our time, Sarah Palin), I have two responses.

    1.Leave your engine running in your closed garage a ½ hour if you believe that, and…
    2.Please read up on the planet Venus…

    Reached comment limit…

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    @Nate
    "The climate models didn't see this stuff coming."

    Climate models have natural cycles and El Nino-La Nina events. They aren't surprised by natural phenomena we've known about for decades. The 00s were .2F warmer than the 90s which is slightly below the pace most climate models suggested. One thing they did significantly underestimate was the decline in Arctic sea ice which is already a decade ahead of where the model thought it would be in terms of low september sea ice minimum extent (I find that those who think climate change is a hoax never seem to point out this significant underestimate).

    "The warmest La Nina year on record was 2006."

    I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out.

  • interested Logan, UT
    May 13, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    @atl134. My Professors were very clear.

    Joe Blow They teach at USU. Where do you get your info from?

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 13, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    @atl134 "2012 was the warmest La Nina year on record."

    Sorry, no. The warmest La Nina year on record was 2006. (NOAA tripped you up by re-classifying.)

    "...cherrypicks 1998...La Nina years..." etc.

    You make my point. The climate models didn't see this stuff coming. What else don't they see?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    Some areas will improve for farmland, others will get worse. It depends on where in the world we're talking about. Canada will improve in that regard, Bangladesh would be decimated (most of their rice crop is grown at elevation levels so low that a meter of sea level rise would basically devastate the nation of 180 million that live in an area the size of Wisconsin).

    Studies indicate that we already grow enough food on the Earth in order to feed everyone, we just have distribution/inefficiency issues (the waste rates of food in this nation are very high).

    Sun data matches up with warming pretty well from 1880-1980, but the last 30 years it has not matched up well at all.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    May 13, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    Irony of the Day: The "follow the money" people who refuse to actually follow the money. The loudest scientific voices for the status quo are openly funded by Big Oil. Who, pray tell, is funding the honest scientist who worries about the effects of pollution? Certainly not the Big Polluters.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 13, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    To "atl134" actually, NASA said that warming the globe is actually good because it is opening up so much more farmland. Some estimates say that by the middle of the this century we should be able to feed 140 million more people around the earth. Isn't that a good thing?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 13, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    To "Tyler D" you should follow your own advice. Just look at who is funding the AGW research and who will benefit the most from it. The governments that are funding that research will be able to gain more control and increase taxes on people and businesses so long as AGW studies show what the government desires.

    To "LDS Tree-Hugger" there are many scientists that would also agree that the man-made climage change is a hoax.

    Read "Bright Sun, Warm earth. Coincidence?" from the National Post.

    "1930s photo shows Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today" UK Register

    "New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism" Forbes

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

    "Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report" Duke University

    "Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    Apparently many scientists admit that the CO2 based models are wrong, and that the sun may actually be causing the warming. But that doesn't fit into the tax codes, so the governments won't advance that theory.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 13, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    The idea that the global warming crowd is altruistic and the anti-alarmists have all been bought off by big-oil is a load of hooey. Those screaming the loudest are the ones positioned to make the most money trading carbon credits, etc.

    JoeBlow,
    We’ve seen with the Solyndra fiasco and other alternative energy debacles that BO is NOT the one to select which ones should get federal seed money. I’d say none of them should get federal seed money so long as run deficits exceeding or approaching one trillion dollars.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    @interested
    Nobody says CO2 is helping. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. Anyone who believes otherwise is grossly negligent on the matter. I half wonder if you are interpreting their use of "helping" incorrectly where helping means "helping to increase the greenhouse effect".

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2013 12:11 p.m.

    @Mountanman
    "For examples, the East Coast of the US and Russia both experienced a colder than normal winter this year."

    We had a top ten warmest January-April globally. You seem to like cherry-picking the areas that work to your advantage rather than looking at the big picture. I bet you'd point out snow in Pennsylvania today (ignoring that out west cancels those anomalies out because it's almost 20 above average today).

    "Acid rain? Acid rain is caused by nitrogen or sulphur oxides, not CO2!"

    Yes, and we regulated those sulphur oxides with cap and trade legislation and now they are not nearly the issue they used to be.

    @Nate
    The 2000s were .2F warmer than the 1990s. 2012 was the warmest La Nina year on record. Part of the reason there isn't an upward trend the past 15 years is because it cherrypicks 1998 (largest El Nino in over half a century) as the starting point and ends with 4 of the last 5 years being La Nina years.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 13, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    "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?

  • interested Logan, UT
    May 13, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    May 13, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    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 cooler.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 13, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    Mountanman
    Hayden, ID
    Al 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.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 13, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 13, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    @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.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 13, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    @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 Al Gore…

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    May 13, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    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.]

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 13, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    "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 sources. You?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 13, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    @ 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"?

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 13, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    @Twin Lights

    Let'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 D Meridian, ID
    May 13, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    @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!!!

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 13, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    Acid rain? Acid rain is caused by nitrogen or sulphur oxides, not CO2! Nice try but wrong again!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 13, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    "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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 13, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 13, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    "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.

  • interested Logan, UT
    May 13, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    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.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 13, 2013 5:27 a.m.

    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.

    OR

    That 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.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    May 13, 2013 1:08 a.m.

    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.