Quantcast

Comments about ‘My view: Climate change is an urgent issue’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 11 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

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

David Folland knows perfectly well that James Hansen's 1988 predictions have proved to be laughably wrong.

Hansen's team presented three model scenarios, the "best case" of which claimed that if CO2 stopped increasing after 2000, we would only experience modest warming by now. The actual measured temperature increase has been even less than this benign prediction.

There is no climate crisis. Real temperatures are increasing at about the rate we would expect after the last ice age. We have much more to fear from the next ice age than the modestly warming and greening (from increased CO2) planet we are experiencing now.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

End political paralysis? It is too profitable to keep things as they are (at least for some).

The problem is we understand so little about science.

We see models change and improved and think "the old one was totally wrong and this one could be too" when the lesson is the old one was less precise than the new.

We see a handful of scientists who disagree and think "they are the mavericks who will be one day proven right". Maybe. But overall science moves in a distributed fashion with thousands of scientists making minor improvements each day. There are relatively few instances of qualitative leaps by one great mind. Also, predicting who is the great mind is awfully tough.

We see that the science is still developing and think "better to act when it is proven fact". But science is ALWAYS developing and tinkering with the model (that is its nature). So there is never a point of now we are done. Also, "proven" in this sense will mean the negative effects are so strong that countermanding them will be very tough.

Finally, we just need to divest ourselves of conspiracy theories. Wide ranging, multinational conspiracies simply cannot work.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

I was thinking about Jerusalem, the climate changed a large city that had farms into a desert. Who is to say that it won't change again to be farming crops again. Every one on earth can all have space to live in the state of Texas. Zoom out and think of the size of Texas and earth. Is there any thing that a pin head can make a difference. or is it our ego that is larger than life. Who'll stop the rain.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "A promising bill to reduce greenhouse gasses was halted in the Senate."

The bill was promising in only one respect -- it promised to flush more and more resources down that giant AGW toilet, making EVERYTHING in the world more expensive and unaffordable to its people, to no salubrious effect.

Would it have reduced global greenhouse gases? Not at all. ALL honest experts agree.

AGW alarmists demanding ever-increasing percentages of people's wherewithal have yet to meaningfully answer the question, "Why?"

There's no evidence, either that the deranged "green" spending they demand will reduce greenhouse gases, or that that any reduction that may occur will have the slightest effect on global climate.

In the absence of such evidence, new tax scams are not only unnecessary, but provide conclusive evidence that AGW alarmists are dangerously unhinged and out of touch with real people.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

If you’re tired (or bored to tears in my case) of the usual players spouting the same old talking points, half-truths, and even bold face lies, you might instead enjoy playing “find the denier.”

David Brin’s article “Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers” is a good resource to help hone your skills.

Have fun...

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

I think it's funny when a conservative calls anyone else "alarmist."

Grandma Char
Kaysville, UT

Is this editorial the position of the Deseret News?

At any rate, there is a reason why "Global Warming" was changed to "Climate Change". There was no global warming that could be considered a problem.

Obama's stated goal to tackle climate change is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. I imagine it wouldn't hurt him much either, he and his cronies, who stand to make
money in the buying and selling of carbon credits!

Affordable clean energy is a myth still. You need look no further than the California company who just recently found their solar panels failing after 2 years when they expected them to last 25.

If this is the position of the Deseret News, it won't be long before my family doesn't subscribe to their paper any more.

Pete1215
Lafayette, IN

I hope people don't think we can whistle past the grave yard on this. There is no doubt we are putting more and more carbon into the atmosphere. Wherever the laws of Physics is taking us, thither we will go.

jsf
Centerville, UT

New York Times
By JUSTIN GILLIS
Published: June 10, 2013
The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They (the practitioners of climate science) admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

In the mean time will an AGW adherent please tell us what is the correct earth temperature we are going to hold at?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@procuradorfiscal
"ALL honest experts agree."

What a revealing statement. You won't even accept the idea that people could disagree and just merely be wrong. Nah it's straight to the conspiracy theories for you. Besides, we did cap and trade with acid rain producing/enhancing compounds and that went quite well so it's not like there isn't evidence this kind of thing can work.

okeesmokee
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Nuclear power must be part of the solution. Only form of base power that isn't dependent upon mother nature.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

"A promising bill to reduce greenhouse gasses was halted in the Senate...."

If you're waiting for Congress to solve your problem... I wouldn't hold your breath. They take forever to do ANYTHING, and usually find a way to make it WORSE.

Congress can't help you unless there's bipartisan agreement that what you want to do will benefit everybody (which means "Votes" to them)... Till then they won't do anything.

Truth is... Congress can't solve Global Warming. Name the bill that IF passed would solve Global Warming.

If you want to solve the problem you need to convince the PEOPLE that what you want is needed (Not Congress). The people need to support you. Bottom_up works. Top_down doesn't. When you go straight to Congress and insiste they give you a law that will FORCE people to live your way... and skip convincing the people first... it fails.

Congress can't force people to change lifestyle. Congress reports to the people and does what they want (most of the time). Because if they don't... we'll vote them out.

I think you should convince the public first and let THEM pressure Congress.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Facts:
1- Carbon dioxide emissions cause the atmosphere to warm up.
2- Humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
3- Global warming is a myth because hate radio tells me it is.

Only possible conclusion: Global warming is a myth.

jsf
Centerville, UT

Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener
31 May 2013
AGU Release No. 13-24
WASHINGTON, DC
…a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.
…given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data shows an 11 percent increase in foliage.

New York Times reports, "The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace."

1- Carbon dioxide emissions (should) cause the atmosphere to warm up.
2- Humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (at a record pace)

But apparently CO2 is not the driving force and is not bad in and of itself. The AGU reports include the south western US, like Utah and Arizona, we are on average 11% greener than 15 years ago. How bad is that. And again why is a warmer temperature bad?

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:Jsf

The NY Times part you left out:

"As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

Somebody who wanted to sell you gold coins as an investment could make the same kind of argument about the futility of putting your retirement funds into the stock market. If he picked the start date and the end date carefully enough, the gold salesman could make it look like the stock market did not go up for a decade or longer."

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

I am all for quoting the AGU. Here are a few:

Human responsibility for most of the well-documented increase in global average temperatures over the last half century is well established.

AND

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system . . . are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850.

AND

The geological record indicates that the current rates of sea-level rise in many regions are unprecedented relative to rates of the last several thousand years.

Sea-level rise will exacerbate the impacts of extreme events, such as hurricanes and storms, over the long-term.

Fitz
Murray, UT

Isn't it interesting that he points to heat waves like we have now. The temperature yesterday tied a record high for June 10 at 100 degrees. The date that it tied with as in 1918, nearly a century ago. These "heat waves" aren't new, the claim that the sky is falling and the earth will no longer sustain us, is also not new. But, like all the previous claims, the changes in the climate will not be the end of civilization as we know it.

jsf
Centerville, UT

RE: Truthseeker

Did I claim temperatures were not rising? You also forgot the part in the article saying scientist have no clue why temperatures are leveled off against a drastic rise in CO2.

In all the reading what is the temperature suppose to be at? In all the AGW studies, you have read what is the earths balanced temperature suppose to be? And why?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "What a revealing statement."

Aren't you kind!

I mean comments to be revealing. Unlike liberals, who love to hide their real ideas behind misleading sloganeering -- like calling it "pro-choice" to remove all choice, forever, from an unborn baby. Or "safe sex" to engage in dangerous, soul-destroying behaviors.

Or to do a quick switcheroo to "climate change," when foundational AGW models and predictions prove to be monumentally, laughably wrong.

Any scientist, of any stripe, who maintains that a deranged new America-only tax scam, one that'll increase the cost to Americans of EVERY product and commodity, will somehow "solve" the AGW "problem" is not just mistaken, he's selling something.

It simply cannot be demonstrated, to any meaningful confidence level, that ANY American action would produce ANY retreat in atmospheric carbon levels, or that ANY such retreat would produce ANY effect on global climate.

That won't stop doctrinaire political hacks and "greenies" posing as scientists from bleating about hope and change.

But, it ought to give us pause.

PunkJones
Bountiful, UT

Hansen's prognostications have proven to be alarmist and dangerously obstructive to the poor in developing countries and their access to affordable energy. Hansen and his friends at U. of East Anglia have led the global warming argument for more than two decades (with Al Gore). The email scandal a couple of years ago should serve as a reminder that they will not only bend science to make a profit, but will also make stuff up and conspire with one another to hide it. And in case you missed it, Hansen's hockey stick graphic in the movie was also proven false. So excuse me for not worshiping at the altar of Mr. Hansen.

Studies show that fluctuations of earth's temperature coincide directly with sun activity--not CO2 levels. Rises and falls in temperature have occurred throughout our planets history long before the fossil fuels industry. So, using logic, what affected temperatures. Is it a miniscule rise in CO2 levels (which is less than 2 percent of all greenhouse gasses), or could it be the big ball of fire in the sky that generates heat for our entire solar system? You be the judge.

to comment

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