Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: C02 bad? Prove it.’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, May 26 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

This letter displays a staggering level of ignorance on the subject of climate change.

Instead of an irrational rant, Mr. Gibbs, how about you educate yourself on the subject of greenhouse gasses and climate change? Global warming information derived from careful, objective, peer-reviewed research is readily available online from NASA, NOAA, AAAS or any of a dozen other respected scientific organizations.

These are scientifically proven facts:

> CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas since the mid-1800s.
> CO2 levels in our atmosphere are now higher than at any time in human history.
> Global temperatures have risen faster in the past several decades than at any time in human history.
> Yes, our climate has and will change naturally, but these natural changes occur very slowly, while the climate change currently observed is happening at (scientifically speaking) breakneck speed.
> Many critical ecosystems can't adapt to changing temperatures this fast.
> Possible natural causes for this warming have been investigated and found _not_ to be responsible.
> Isotopic analysis of the increased CO2 in our air identifies it as having come from the combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and oil.

embarrassed Utahn!
Salt Lake City, UT

Everyone can continue to ignore the threat of rising seas, melting ice and the degradation of life-sustaining environment. Mr. Gibbs has proven that 97% of climate scientists are dead-wrong about our "precious greenhouse gasses" and that everything's cool! What a relief to the huge number of Utahns who share Mr. Gibbs! Go about your business and don't worry about the future!

Maudine
SLC, UT

"What a cruel hoax is perpetuated. We see and hear who says so, but who has demonstrated and proved that carbon dioxide is bad, or worse than oxygen? When and where were such scientific tests published? Blaming changes in climate on carbon dioxide is a bait-and-switch game. Perhaps we all should quit breathing and emitting carbon dioxide."

We expel CO2 from our bodies as a waste product - obviously, our bodies cannot use it the way they use oxygen.

But since you do not believe this, why don't you do the experiment yourself - lock yourself in an airtight room and see how long it takes for you to get lightheaded breathing in your own CO2. Make sure you have someone outside the room to monitor your safety so that you do not die from suffocation.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Global warming ice cores provide evidence of what transpired after the world emerged out of the Ice Age era. They contain particulate matters & trapped gases of what was in the Earth’s atmosphere thousands of years ago. This science has strengthened the theory that global warming is a normal part of global climate cycle. Not to worry folks, the climate is always changing and always will and mankind has nothing to do with it. But hey, who's scientists are you going to believe?

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

I don't think many would want us to go purely for wind power at this point. Natural gas is a no brainer for vehicles including semis. China builds a new coal power plant each week. They are the culprits if you are a global warming fan.

Bebyebe
UUU, UT

Venus

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

Really? The new argument is to MISS the point of the science completely? You only prove that you don't want to be informed at all.

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

Well sir, It has been proven that increasing CO2 levels will change the climate. I think you are missing the point the climate scientists have been making for the last 20 years. If the atmosphere were 100% CO2 we would all be dead in a few minutes.

Oxygen if increased, would have a negative impact of increased wildfires and the smoke would change solar heat gain and radiation.

Any change has consequences.

I'll never understand how people can believe that we can change the atmosphere composition and think there will not be any effect.

DougS
Oakley, UT

Blue.. take your "facts" and explain how plant life will suffer when you eliminate carbon fdioxide.. use them to explain why they are called a "green house" gas.. Do your "facts" explain the demise of the "Ice Age"? (remember mam wasn't here then) Apparently, your scientists know everything since no others see the same "facts"..

The Skeptical Chymist
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Mr. Gibbs:

You lack even the most basic understanding of the underlying science here. To suggest that oxygen could be as much of a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide shows that you don't understand what a greenhouse gas is or how it works. Oxygen does not absorb infrared radiation, it allows it to pass unhindered out into space. Carbon dioxide does absorb infrared radiation at specific wavelengths, trapping its energy in the atmosphere, where it contributes to warming the planet.

The subject of global warming is complicated, with many contributing effects, but your letter shows that you lack the understanding of even the most basic of these effects.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Doug, what's with the quote marks re the "facts" of global warming? You're saying you don't believe the evidence?

Who is saying we should "eliminate carbon fdoxide (sic)"?

Do you really _not_ know about how CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas and why it's more significant as a driver of global warming than water vapor or methane? Are you incapable of even this basis bit of self-education?

The end of the last Ice Age was a slow process resulting from slow, natural changes in climate. Didn't you read my post? No one denies that climate change occurs naturally. The issue here is the extremely rapid climate change we're seeing now and that is conclusively attributed to human combustion of fossil fuels.

"Apparently, your scientists know everything since no others see the same 'facts'.."

Do you understand the difference between knowing about what _is_ well-understood about the connection between fossil fuels and climate change and "knowing everything?"

What's stunning is the active rejection of science, research principles, and evidence by global warming deniers.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

‘Letter: C02 bad? Prove it.’

"...but who has demonstrated and proved that carbon dioxide is bad, or worse than oxygen?"

===========

This guy want s "proof",
And yet somehow, I don't think he'd be willing to put a tightly sealed plastic bag over his head.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Clearly the best climatologist minds int he world are members of the utah armchair climatologists' society.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Oxygen (and nitrogen which combined make up the vast majority of the atmosphere) are not.

@Mountanman
"This science has strengthened the theory that global warming is a normal part of global climate cycle."

There are natural cycles (like the Milankovich) but we are clearly having an anthropogenic component to the current warming. The increase in CO2 over the past 100 years was overwhelmingly a result of anthropogenic sources.

@DougS

"them to explain why they are called a "green house" gas"

CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases because they have absorption lines in the spectrum that coincide with the IR energy emitted by the earth. Some of this absorbed energy ends up re-emitted back to the surface of the Earth, keeping the Earth roughly 25-30C warmer than it would otherwise be. O2 and N2 (the primary gases in the atmosphere) do not have absorption lines that match up with IR emitted by the earth so they aren't greenhouse gases. It is estimated that CO2 is responsible for roughly 10% of the greenhouse effect and we've increased it roughly 40% the past 150 years.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Alt134,

Nice.

DougS
Oakley, UT

I know about green house gases.. Just wondered how many tree huggers did. Blue never had an original thought as to others who blindly accept whatever the media puts out. I, on the other hand, sort through many sources to seek the best fit. "Man made" global warming isn't a fit as yet.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

DougS..a fit for what? First of all there are sources worth consulting and sources not. If you want to know what the weather is going to be tomorrow I suggest you consult a meteorologist not a tea leaf reader. When over 90% of climate scientist agree that humans influence the climate it would take some pretty interesting arguments against human influence to create a better fit for reality.

the truth
Holladay, UT

Here's the real truth,

Temperature has risen ONLY .2 to .3 degrees over the last century.

So called climate scientists predicted years ago the oceans would rise 25 feet by now, they haven't.

CO2 is not predictor of climate or weather or temperature. CO2 levels have changed over the years without any subsequent change in climate or temperature.

And temperature and climate has changed without and corresponding change in CO2 levels.

There is no causal link.

But I guess the Gore-ites and chicken little climate changers will believe silly anything they are told.

Is there climate change? YES!
But is is natural.

So enough with irrational and silly fears and predictions. (and for CO2 nuts Venus was never like Earth, and it's CO2 was natural, no aliens with hairspray or polluting saucers)

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

The Truth,

Your data appears flawed. According to graphs available on the NASA website, the average surface temperature has risen about 0.8 degrees centigrade or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880.

As to prior predictions, it would help to know who and when.

I have no idea if CO2 is a “predictor” of climate. But, as a greenhouse gas, it has an effect on climate, and that is the causal link. Climate of course is a long term phenomenon. It is not about our weather today or even this particular year.

As to CO2 on Venus. The source is irrelevant to the effect. I have no idea what your point is about aliens, hairspray, or flying saucers.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@the truth

"Temperature has risen ONLY .2 to .3 degrees over the last century."

There is no temperature unit of which that is true. It's gone up around .9C globally the past century.

If you want to talk about the "real truth" I suggest starting off with something that isn't demonstrably false.

to comment

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