Comments about ‘Climate change already playing out in West, report says’

Return to article »

Change 'more dramatic' in winter than previously thought, ecologist says

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 18 2012 6:10 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

The biggest problem our wildlife faces is not global change / warming, it is the idiotic re-introduction of the wolf back into the woods. They are breeding and killing machines. They are being seen all over Northern Utah, and making their way south. They do not only kill for food, they kill for fun, it is a game to them. They will wipe out our deer, elk, and moose herds.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Ah, yes. So many "experts" posting here today.

Posting with absolute certainty, we have one spewing the old nonsense about contrails from jet aircraft -- a perfectly natural happening when humidity is just right to produce them.

We have others who completely ignore the fact that never before in Earth's billions of years of history have there been over 7 billion people on the planet.

And we have others who obviously gain their expertise from such scientifically credible sources as hate radio.

Then there is one who credits it all to changes in Earth's opinion polls.

Not much credibility in any of them.

Is paranoia really a Utah Value? Seems like it.

Everett, 00

I can not believe how many Utahans will ignorantly take college drop outs radio show (not even weather announcers) like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's word over 97% of the world's Scientific community.

Sandy, UT

okay, now what? Start hiring Native Indians to do their rain dance or something?

Salt Lake City, UT

"You think I'm just another "nut-case", with yet another conspiracy theory, right?"


salt lake city, UT

Human Beings are no different than any other animal species. We'll over extend the carrying capacity of our ecosytems and Mother Nature will hit auto correct. The only non-believers are those that cling to their religon so tight they can't see the truth or have the courage to address it.

Social Mod Fiscal Con
West Jordan, UT

Is climate change real? Yes.
Do we need to be smart about planning for it? Yes.
Do we need to see if there is anything we can do to mitigate it? Yes.
Is climate change man-made? Almost certainly not.

Do 9 of 10 published climate scientists think it is? It seems that way.
Are 9 of 10 climate scientists getting funded by groups who believe it is? Yes.
If a climate scientist wants test a theory that would disprove man-made climate change, are they going to get funding? Probably not.
A perfect example of natural selection at it's very worst.

Abiquiu, NM

The current rate of temperature increase for Utah, all climate divisions, is 2.2f per 100 years. Over the entire state, precipitation has also increased by 1.1 inches over the past 100 years. Different climate divisions within the state have different values: division 1 for example has 0.25" more precipitation and 2.3f increase in temperature. This has already had a very deleterious effect on the biosphere in Utah, and all of the data show human activities are the main cause. We (scientists) know all of the forcings involved, and we know with high confidence the values: to assert the belief that we are lying or mistaken is not just wrong, but silly.

Hayden, ID

To my friends who think humans are affecting climate change. I invite you to consider who it is postulating these theories and why. First, if you are a "scientist" and your grant money continuation is dependent on finding "data" that supports man made global warming, you WILL find some, even if you have to speculate. Publish it and the money flow continues. Don't and your "research" money dries up! Also consider the agendas of those who want to see this theory advanced and why! CARBON TAXES! Yep folks, its always about getting more control of our money! Why? because if you control the wealth, you control everything else! Now go back to work and stop worrying about things that we can't control, like the climate changing, which it always has and always will!

Abiquiu, NM

"...It isn't -- it's been flat since 1998."

Heh. No. Global average temperature has not been "flat since 1998." Anyone who makes that odd assertion is being silly. Anyone foolish enough to believe such a short time span has any significance can perform the math and calculate the warming trend since year 1998 (it is R^2 = +0.1349 by the way). Why not start at year 1999? Starting at year 1999, the warming trend is R^2 = +0.2715. Ooops! Another FOX "News" obeyer refuted.

The sad fact is that the data show that human-caused climate change, and global average temperature, has not "stopped," nor "slowed down." The rate of global average temperature increase has held steady at about +0.12c per decade--- and it is very important that Utah, like every other state in the union, prepare for coping with this crisis.

Abiquiu, NM

"It is caused by solar flares and a shift in the earths polls."

Unfortunately, these imaginary events did not happen, nor could they explain the global temperature anomaly. Note also that solar flares do not last many decades: perhaps you mean "total solar irradiance?" As for Earth's axis shifting, that did not happen either.

Regarding the current global temperature anomaly:

"There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero ( 0.04 W m^2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 0.3 W m^2."

Human activities are observed to be the cause. We have known the physics involved for almost 200 years.

Grandma Char
Kaysville, UT

There is no reliable data to say that climate change is the fault of carbon based fuels. The fact that scientists had to manipulate their data to prove it...it is just not right that our government is taking that information and killing our coal industry, driving up our electricity rates, and keeping us from using our own natural resources.

Magna, UT

UN agenda 21 is all that's needed to expose the lies and junk science of once upon a time "Global Warming" which was absolutely refuted by real science to the mis-information moniker of "Climate Change"


Richard Muller directed a Koch-funded climate change project, has undergone a 'total turnaround' on his stance on global warming, which he now admits is caused by human activity. Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.

It is clear that many DN commentors put their faith and trust in propaganda TV--Fox. It is quite ironic that those that raise the paranoia about control are the ones being controlled--by big moneyed corporate interests.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Truthseeker" but what do the findings that Richard Muller say. Does it matter who funds it.

If funding source is enough to discredit a study, then all IPCC, NASA, and any other study funded by government is also invalid. They are invalid because they are just being used by governments to justify centralized planning and taxation.

If climate change is caused by human activity, show us a source that is not funded by a government agency that states such.

You only show that many liberals have no problem being controlled by government and anything that they deem as fact.

North, UT

When curve fitting the top global warming models (that are all based upon a rigid application of the Clausius Clapeyron equation to our Troposphere) to the glabal temperature data for the last 20 years, the data curve fit has an r^2 of less than 0.35. To those who actually have the scientific or statitical training to understand this...would you base any serious decision on this type of data?

Fern RL

The globe is too big for me to fit my head around. How about air quality in the Salt Lake basin? Would it, or would it not, help to subsidize public transportation enough to get more people riding Front Runner, Trax, and/or buses instead of driving their cars? Stop UTA from spending their millions of dollars lobbying the legislature and Congress to get our tax money--just put that money toward lowering the ticket prices, both the same tax money they would have gotten and the money they would have spent lobbying for it.

South Jordan, UT

If you have ever done any type of modeling you should be familiar with the moto: "All models are wrong, some are useful."


@ Ernest T. Bass, who wrote The conservative head-in-the-sand mentality never ceases to amaze me." I'm equally amazed by the "sheeple" mentality of the typical liberal, who trusts anything the government wants them to believe.

USS Enterprise, UT

It wouldn't help to increase the subsidy to mass transit. The problem that Utah has with mass transit comes in 2 parts. First, the SLC valley is too rural and spread out. Second, which is related is the fact that you can typically drive to your destination in 1/2 the time that it takes to use UTA.

For example, when I went to college, I had a 45 minute bus ride followed by a 15 minute walk to where my classes were held. That does not include the time to wait for the bus, and the time waiting around because the bus schedule didn't have more than 1 bus/30 minutes. With my own car, I had a 10 to 15 minute drive and less than 5 minute walk to class. Why take up to 2 hours of your day to go somewhere you can drive to in 15 minutes?

to comment

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