Comments about ‘New study links wildfires and climate change’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, July 30 2012 6:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Their results are pretty intuitive- Hotter climate, more fires. Cooler climate, fewer fires.

Note that they DID NOT say that our current trend towards a warming climate has man made causes.

The earth has gone through repeated warming and cooling cycles long before mankind increased to the point where they might even remotely be a contributing factor.

So, yes we might have more fires as the climate arms, but it has NOTHING to do with you driving your car to work or vacation.

Mchenry, IL

We also aren't clearing areas of dead matter either. Just feeding more to the fire.

Ogden, UT

DN Subscriber,

I like how you are cherry-picking which studies you find credible. Not because you know the science, of course, but because you like the result. It's amazing how sensitive conservatives are to the evidence that human activities are contributing to climate change. I'm guessing that if there were no political proposals to curb greenhouse gas emissions, most conservatives wouldn't care if scientists proved a human cause, because it wouldn't affect anyone's pocket book or lifestyle.

In which case, you are making the wrong argument. Stop trying to argue against science that you don't understand. Instead, be honest and say "Sure, people are likely contributing to global climate change. But I don't think it is worth passing laws that could cause economic harm." That's an honest concern. That's an honest argument. Attempting to debunk climate science that you don't understand for economic reasons isn't.

Let's Agree to Disagree
Spanish Fork, UT

I always get a good laugh out of people who are global warming experts. You know the people I am talking about. No they did take ice core samples, or study tree rings, or get a PhD in climate science, or write the models used to identify man as the cause of global warming. But they did read about it on a website once and you had better not voice a contrary opinion to there pro-global warming dogma or they will tell you just how little you know about the 'science' involved. No they do not have logic or reason on their side (otherwise they would have a good reason to explain why the earth has been both hotter and colder in the past) but they do have a lot of scientists (who get their grant money to study global warming) and they have a lot of politicians (who never let a good crisis go to waste). I guess that all we can do is keep laughing until this most recent eco-fad (eco-fraud?) goes out of style. I am guessing it will be another few years at least.

Salt Lake City, UT

"I always get a good laugh out of people who are global warming experts. You know the people I am talking about. No they did take ice core samples, or study tree rings, or get a PhD in climate science, or write the models used to identify man as the cause of global warming. But they did read about it on a website once and you had better not voice a contrary opinion to there pro-global warming dogma or they will tell you just how little you know about the 'science' involved."

Well that's interesting. So what you are saying is the people that listen to, and learn from, the people that have done all the things you talk about (collect ice core samples, study tree rings, get a PhD in climate science, write models that identify man as the cause of global warming) are less reliable then those that discount man made global warming. All because you think it is an "eco-fad". So where do you think the people on this site that do not think global warming is human caused get their insight? Limbaugh?

That is funny, Let's Agree to Disagree.

Ogden, UT

Let's Agree to Disagree,

OK, fair enough. But have you taken ice core samples? Studied tree rings? Earned a PhD in climate science? Developed a climate model? I certainly hope so, or your comment will be the most ironic thing I have read in quite some time. "I always get a good laugh out of people who are global warming experts". Yet you go on as if you were an expert!

All you have to do to prove me wrong is list the credentials or education you have that qualify you to discount the peer-reviewed scientific publications. You are disagreeing with majority scientific opinion here, so feel free to tell us where all of those researchers went wrong. Vague accusations of "eco-fraud" and crooked money-grubbing scientists do not count; that is speculation and political posturing, not science.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

What is very interesting is that conservative red states are destined to profit from addressing climate change because the great wind, solar, and geothermal resources that can eventually replace fossil fuels are all located in conservative, red states -- from the windy Great Plains to the sunshine and geothermal states of Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.

The climate debate has been framed as the requiring of "mandates" to move us off fossil fuels to renewables. Conservatives have claimed this is resulting in "world government" and a loss of freedom.

What is needed is a new narrative that resonates with conservatives that highlights the economic opportunities and national security that will come from developing clean, price-stable energy -- at home in America's rural heartland, creating domestic jobs that can't be outsourced (unlike oil and natural gas).

Red states, such as Iowa and Texas, are already developing wind resources at massive levels, largely for the economic benefit over climate issues. Iowa already procures 20 percent of its electricity from wind, stablizing power prices and pouring millions into farms and landowner hands. Can't do that with foreign oil!

Ricardo Carvalho
Provo, UT

Global cooling and warming happened in the past when there were no humans on earth. The cause and rate of global warming that is happening now, therefore, could not be caused or affected by humans. Is there not a mistake in that logic Let's agree to disagree? Let me try this on for size. When I put food on my table and the dog is outside the food disappears (after my children sit round that table). One day, I leave the kitchen door open and the food disappears. The dog could not be a cause of that disappearance as food disappeared in the past without him being present.

Go Utes!
Springville, UT

So wait, they are saying when its hot and dry fires will start easier than when its cold and wet?


The Rock
Federal Way, WA

In other news: Scientists find strong link between being a left wing liberal and believing in man made global warming.

Alpine, UT

I lived through the '70's scientific claim of pending global cooling. I don't recall a carbon tax, or was it an icicle tax, threatening us at the time. Of course, al gore wasn't around to enlighten us with fraudulent evidence from climatologists in England who altered data that the left uses to base their phoney claims on. Oh, but I did consider buying a down parka and an extra pair of thermals to help me through this potential crisis, which we can't let go to waste, right rahm?

Sainte Genevieve, MO

Whether the current climate change has been brought about by human intervention or is a natural phenomenon, we will need to learn to adapt to it. I would also venture that conservatives should be the people most concerned with the environment since the word conservation and conservative have the same root. Conservatives by their nature like things to stay the same. Well in order to keep things the same, as much as possible, we need to take steps to conserve. As a Boy Scout I was taught that what you pack into a wilderness, you pack out, leaving only footprints as evidence of your passage. Expand that same thought globally. Our science and our technology will find solutions to the issues of pollution, but we have to free the entrepreneurs and the scientists to pursue them. The current political climate makes it difficult to do that. A clean coal research project at an area university is being shut down because it is "politically incorrect" to consider any use of coal at all. That's just one example of what I might call the warming of the political climate. I believe this is the biggest threat to our society today.


"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

(Richard Muller, head of The Berkeley Earth Project, funded by the Koch brothers)

Ogden, UT

And in this corner the world champion of climate malarky the one and only Al Gore. Ready for some more scams

Chandler, AZ

"I lived through the '70's scientific claim of pending global cooling."
No, you didn't. Time and Newsweek reported the minority opinion as if it were a scientific consensus. There was no such consensus in the 70's. Actually, there wasn't even a lot of research on the topic back then. From 1965 to 1979, there were only 49 peer reviewed papers on the subject of climate change. Of those, only 7 of them suggested that the earth was cooling.

Moral of the story: Time and Newsweek are for entertainment purposes only.

Boise, ID

That is the key then, is it not? Climate change happens but is man the cause? That part has not been proved yet.

West Jordan, UT

How much research money did it take to come to the conclusion that hotter weather makes for fires? I could have offered that conclusion to everybody free of charge. Though there should be the distinction between climate and weather.

Climate is a composite of different environmental factors over a long period of time where weather is the refined, detailed look. Climate doesn't lead to fires. It is the day to day conditions like a hot, dry day mixed with a lightning storm that causes fires. Even with long term conditions that tend to lead to fire, a macroscopic look would suggest that fires burn all the time everywhere. No, it is specific weather, not the composite climate that is the topic of this report.

But then you have to justify your political science and funding sources by using the term "climate change" somewhere in the report. Right?

Salt Lake City, UT

The main financial supporters against theories about Global Climate Change are those who profit from creating higher atmospheric levels of CO2. They also have the GOP in their back pockets. They are the same who don't care about the quality of air we breath nor the damage they do to the planet to extract their oil. Because it is a limited resource, the price of extracting it keeps going up as their methods need to be more complex and sophisticated. Eventually, we will run out. I do not understand why we are not all in agreement to start transitioning towards a non polluting (by comparison to fossil fuels), sustainable energy supply. We could use our $ to support our economy instead of Mexico's, Canada's or others. That money would create jobs that would stay here in USA. We could further develop this RE technology and export it to the rest of the world and become the new exporter of Renewable Energy technology (now China is positioning itself to assume this role and they are ahead of us). To me this is not a political question as much as it is an economic one. Why not support America?

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

This is all Bush's fault. If Bush were never president we would never have any problems!

Sarcasm aside, are wildfires really all that bad? Sure, when it gets close to settlements and people's property they have a chance of losing it. But fires have long term benefits for the landscape.

Provo, UT

I wonder how much they earned and how long it took to come up with these findings. Just to summarize: Warmer, drier conditions = more wildfires. Brilliant!! Who would have guessed it? Pin the blue ribbon upon their collective chests. Is this really news worthy? My scout troop could have presenting these findings after trying to start a fire in the rain with wet wood.

to comment

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