Quantcast
Opinion

What others say: Targeting coal

Comments

Return To Article
  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    July 3, 2013 11:00 p.m.

    @marxist

    The Arctic ice cap contracts every summer and regrows every winter. If you were to check the ice extent data, you would find that it's comfortably within normal values. The most recent unusual melting episode was the result of shifting ocean currents, not increased air temperatures, and it was followed by a faster-than-usual refreeze.

    If seawalls are being built to protect Eskimo villages, they are the result of misguided politicians responding to scientists who tell them precisely what they're being paid to tell them (as opposed to telling them what's really happening) - in other words. Think of them as SeaWalls to Hold Back Nothing, which are a nice complement to the Bridge to Nowhere.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    re: Mountanman "Sigh! People, the average temperature of the earth has not warmed for 16 years! " But then why does the north polar icecap continue to contract? Why is the Alaska permafrost disappearing? Why are seawalls being built to protect Eskimo villages on the coast from flooding? Just asking.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 29, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    Hey, I'll gladly support the 'Global warming' theorists if they will be the first ones to volunteer to use ropes to pull the turbines! In the absence of volunteers, I fall back to an original truth; Liberals love to volunteer everyone else to do the job, but won't do it themselves. When they are willing to abide by the same rules as everyone else, I'm there! Don't hold your breath! It will be a long, long, time.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    June 29, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    I con only imagine the cost of wind or solar maintenance. not to mention the cost to to it.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    June 29, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    @bandersen
    Saint George, UT

    The Global warming crowd is the same crowd that promoting a new ice age back in the 70s.
    1:25 p.m. June 28, 2013

    =====

    You are confusing that with "Nuclear Winter".
    which - also - happens to be a man-made threat to global extinction.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    June 29, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Utah's all-time highest temperature was 117 degrees, which it doesn't look like we'll reach during this hot spell. The current record was set on july 5, 1895. If a person wishes to blame today's high temperature on global warming, then what, pray tell, is the reason that we've seen these kinds of high temperatures throughout Utah's recorded history, and how are today's temperatures any different?

    Can any of you global warming promoters show any correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? If so, you should publish it, because nobody else has been able to establish any correlation.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:36 p.m.

    Sensible Scientist
    Rexburg, ID

    Just one question: What warming?
    8:51 p.m. June 28, 2013

    ==========

    ...asks the self called "Sensible Scientist"
    on the day with the hottest temperature for the month of June EVER recorded....

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:55 p.m.

    There's a reason that recent years are among the "n hottest years on record" - that's what happens when the planet reaches the peak of a natural warming cycle, and when the amount of data we have only spans one or two 60-year cycles.

    Keith Briffa just republished his Yamal series, but this time left out the garbage that previously - and erroneously - produced a hockey stick graph. Guess what? No hockey stick this time.

    And the recent paper "proving" that 97.1% of published papers support human-caused catastrophic global warming? I would be embarrassed to publish a paper so obviously flawed in its methodology and its conclusion.

    I think all climate scientists consider atmospheric CO2 to be a greenhouse gas that, at least in theory, ought to cause some amount of warming. How much? Nobody can say because nobody has succeeded in correlating atmospheric CO2 to temperature. The effect is too small to measure. So why are we worrying about it? Why are we proposing to dramatically increase the cost of energy (and thus lower our standard of living) to solve a non-problem?

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:20 p.m.

    "Just as the nation cannot afford to humor climate-change deniers, it cannot allow the carbon output of its worst greenhouse gas emitters to continue unchecked."

    ------------------

    Ya'know, it is slimy tactics, like using the term "deniers" (with its obvious and completely inappropriate allusions to holocaust "deniers") which makes me most skeptical of the entire global warming/change crowd.

    When people resort to nonsense like that, even more than when it is revealed that there has been some data manipulation, I tend to suspect their is more politics than science involved. And **that** corruption of science that has me most annoyed.

  • Sensible Scientist Rexburg, ID
    June 28, 2013 8:51 p.m.

    Just one question: What warming?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 7:04 p.m.

    Jon W,

    Playing with a pocket calculator isn't remotely the same thing as genuinely evaluating climate science.

    Our atmosphere hasn't held 400 ppm of CO2 in at least many, many hundreds of thousands of years. The changes in temperature, and the resulting changes in climate, that rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are causing are happening a speeds to which natural systems have no chance of adapting.

    Arctic sea ice is shrinking at record rates. Glaciers are retreating at record rates. The ocean is acidifying at record rates. These are observed facts.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    @Jon W.
    "Recently, due to human activity (chiefly the production of energy from "fossil" fuels), C02 concentrations have risen as high as 0.04 percent"

    Its share of the total atmosphere (which is small) is not as relevant as its' share of the greenhouse gases (roughly 14% when comparing the 0397 you note to the .2897 you used as a rough baseline for total GHGs) or its' own change over the years since it's gone from 300 to 400ppm over the past century, a 33% increase.

  • Jon W. Murray, UT
    June 28, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    "Coal-fired plants produce 1/3rd of all greenhouse gasses" - it's statements like this that make the claims for global warming so unbelievable for those who have actually paid attention during high school science courses, and who don't have a financial or political stake in proving/believing that global warming is human caused.

    CO2 constitutes about 0.0397% of the atmosphere. Other "greenhouse" gasses include methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone, which are a much smaller percentage, and water vapor, which is a much larger percentage, approximately 0.25 percent as a global average, though it can be as high as 5% in humid hot locations. Therefore "greenhouse" gasses (which, by the way, make almost all life on Earth possible) are about 0.2897% of the atmosphere. Recently, due to human activity (chiefly the production of energy from "fossil" fuels), C02 concentrations have risen as high as 0.04 percent - an increas of 0.0003%. It is possible that 1/3rd of this increase, or 0.0001% of the atmosphere, could be attributed to coal fired electric plants. 0.0001/0.29 is 0.0003448. 1/3 is 0.3333333. You can see the gross exaggeration of this editorial.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    @JBT
    " The Politician who says there IS global warming? Or an actual real scientist who says there is NOT global warming...??"

    Most climate scientists believe there is anthropogenic global warming.

    @Mountanman
    "People, the average temperature of the earth has not warmed for 16 years! "

    Climate science uses 30 year climate norms. You use 16 years so you can start your set at the warmest El Nino in half a century and ignore the fact that 12 of the 14 warmest years in the 100+ year dataset are in the 21st century.

    @banderson
    "The Global warming crowd is the same crowd that promoting a new ice age back in the 70s."

    No, most jounral articles back then in the scientific literature were talking about warming (see: "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus"). For the record, one of the main influences for the flattening of the temperature trend in the 50s-60s was due to the increase in aerosols in the atmosphere by human sources. Aerosols have a cooling effect and resulted in an anthropogenic negative influence on temperature via global dimming but also caused pollution problems. We passed laws to clean up the pollution problem, reducing the negative influence.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 28, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    Global Warming Deniers remind me of 2 groups of people from the past....

    The "World is definitely Flat",
    or
    The one's mocking Noah for building an ark when it wasn't raining.

  • Mort56 Price, UT
    June 28, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    Why is the picture of a smokestack belching a large amount of smoke or steam and surrounded by and obscured by more smoke or steam. I leave in Carbon county and we have four power plants here and in Emery county. This is not what they look like. Why does the paper use a image that is not true anymore. I remember when I was a child that we had constant haze around our communities due to the use of coal being burned to heat our homes. Now we have these power plants that produce much but with little visible pollution. We need to use some common sense. The world has been undergoing changes over the length of its history. For the coal to form the valley here was a inland sea. The hills we have testify of this fact. They are littered with ancient sea shells. This means that we have to deal with changes in our environment and learn to care for it and not try to keep it at a preconceive condition.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    What about the 'denyers' of the damage done by immoral choices! Should I call them a bigot for denying those choices? The Global warming crowd is the same crowd that promoting a new ice age back in the 70s. They had 'respected' scientists woefully telling us about that then. The Malthusian crowd will be with us forever. Edwin Hubble said the Universe was expanding. Perhaps we should stop that too-with a government program, of course!

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 28, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    Re:CounterIntell

    Yup, i was providing alternative FACTS (glad we agree they are facts), to the claim that the climate is not warming.

    You accuse me of "selectivity" and then go on to do the same. Lol

    As for John Theon:

    NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt wrote: "Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC [Goddard Space FlightCenter], who reports to the NASA Administrator)."

    Hansen: "John Theon Never Had Any Supervisory Authority Over Me." In an email to blogger M.J. Murphy, Hansen wrote: "John Theon never had any supervisory authority over me. I remember that he was in the bureaucracy at NASA Headquarters, but I cannot recall having any interactions with him. His claim of association is misleading, to say the least."

    Jim Hansen was head of an entirely (higher) different division than theon. Theon was head of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring division.

  • stuff Provo, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    On a geological scale, I'm not sure anything is out of the ordinary in regards to climate. If there is, I tend to think it's due to fluctuations in the earth's magnetic and radiation belts that allow more and less solar particles into the atmosphere over time. Not much impact on that from humans and certainly nothing us humans can do about controlling it.

    Also, there's nothing that mankind puts into the atmosphere that did not come from the earth and that Mother Nature will not put back into the earth. I believe that the Earth's natural resources were meant to be used properly to benefit all of us. Shutting down the use of the earth's resources is a hinderment to the stability and advancement of mankind. So, use away - properly!!!

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    re:Irony Guy

    Clean power plants?? You mean solar plants or wind? HA!! Do you have any idea the power generation capacity of a solar plant or wind? You couldn't even run a small town on solar let alone tens of millions of LA and Phoenix. Join the 'real' world guy and do some research for heaven sake.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 28, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    Come on, Republicans. Let's tidy up the nursery. President Obama's giving you a spoonful of sugar in the form of incentives for clean power plants. You don't want to choke on your gases, do you?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    One side note...

    On a recent trip to Lake Powell we took a tour through the Glenn Canyon dam. There is a Coal Fired power plant just a few miles away from the dam that produces more than double the amount of power that the dam does and this is needed for California and the HUGE energy demand of that region. Take the coal fired plant offline and Southern California goes dark.... I have to wonder what the Hollywood flakes would say about that??? Again - there is such an ignorant hysteria out there regarding energy that is fueled by Barack himself.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Coal fired power is dirty and damaging - no question. However being a nation which can't sustain it's own energy needs is crippling. The problem with Barack Obama is his impractical ideology which tells him to SHUT DOWN ALL domestic oil production on public land as well as natural gas and Nuclear power. Follow that with the dismantling of coal fired plants and that puts the US is a world of hurt. The man WILL NOT compromise and compromise is EXACTLY what is needed from the president. The US has alot of engery potential - enough to free us from Saudi Arabia and other foreign oil so the REAL solution is to use ALL OF OUR domestic energy potential while at the same time investing in research into alternative energy. Wind power is a joke and so is solar ...at least for large scale energy production. The technology just isn't there yet. This has to be a 'phased approach' and not a all or nothing approach. We DESPERATELY NEED a practical governing president in the White House - a leader and a manager. We have neither.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    If you were experiencing severe headaches and you visited 100 brain surgeons, and 97 of them told you that you had a brain tumor that needed immediate surgery while 3 said they weren't sure so let's wait and see, what would you do? That's the situation. 97% of all climatologists believe that global warming is happening, and that human carbon emission are the primary cause. So go ahead and ignore the 97 and listen to the 3. Not a smart move.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    @ counter intelligence

    "NOAA has only been around 130 +- years (out of millions of years of climate history) and their data collection is much different now than in 1883."

    So? That doesn't make them any less accurate. Of course data collection methods are going to change over 100 years.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    Truthseeker

    Once again - selective presentation of facts

    NOAA has only been around 130 +- years (out of millions of years of climate history) and their data collection is much different now than in 1883.

    You also forgot to mention that Dr John Theon formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has come out as a sceptic.

    Dr Theon supervised James Hansen; the activist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis prominent media attention. Hansen was in charge of the data derived from readings published by NOAA. His data has received criticism for revising the historic record upward and making undocumented and unexplained revisions. Theon also debunks Hansen's claim that he was suppressed by NASA officials, and states that science simply didn't support Hansen's apoplectic apocalyptic warnings.

    Furthermore CO2 is not a poison,it is plant food,its impact on warming dramatically decreases with concentrations, its levels being much higher during ice ages, and in 2011, the last year data is available, all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were already down 8.5 percent from 2005. Simply responding to changing consumer preferences.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 28, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    NOAA’s data for land and ocean temperature anomalies shows that 14 of the past 15 years were the hottest on record.

    Reto Ruedy, a program manager at NASA's Goddard Institute, told PolitiFact that the institute’s data shows that 13 of the warmest years have occurred in the past 15 years. Alternately, one could say that 12 of the warmest years came in the last 13.

    The National Research Council, which is among a few independent, nonprofit U.S. institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter, issued an analysis in May 2011. A press release summarizing that work opens: "Warning that the risk of dangerous climate change impacts is growing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, a" council "committee today reiterated the pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare to adapt to its impacts."

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    It would be a shame to clean the place up for nothing.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 28, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    Sigh! People, the average temperature of the earth has not warmed for 16 years! Study the data if you are not so blinded by liberal ideology that you will not see it! I don't mean falsified data from the US government agencies who have their hands in the money! Study independent data from Sweden, Denmark, Russia others who have no ideological axe to grind, no political score to achieve or hands in big government's pockets!

  • JBT Provo, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    So, I'm confused as to whom I should believe. The Politician who says there IS global warming? Or an actual real scientist who says there is NOT global warming...?? hmmm, not sure where to go with this one..

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 28, 2013 5:46 a.m.

    yes, and if we apply MORE leaches to the patient, they will heal even quicker.

    the article promotes quack science

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 4:37 a.m.

    Our country cannot afford to indulge climate change alarmists (who bigotedly accuse anyone who raises legitimate concerns about environmental extremisms as being deniers)