Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Global warming action’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 13 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Allisdair
Thornbury, Vic

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.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

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.

HS Fan
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

interested
Logan, UT

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.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"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.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

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

"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

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

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@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!!!

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@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.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ 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"?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"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?

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

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.]

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@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…

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@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

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

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.

interested
Logan, UT

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.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"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?

to comment

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