Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Climate responsibility’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 15 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

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

Tyler D: "This is the informed opinion of over 97% of all climate scientists."

All of the polls/studies that claim 97 or 98% of climate scientists believe in catastrophic man-caused climate change have proved to be bogus. The one that claimed "97%" attempted to poll 10,000 scientists. Less than 1200 of these responded to the survey. Out of those, the creators of the survey cherry picked 79 scientists, 77 of whom answered "yes" to two questions. For a laugh, find the study and read the questions. (hint - with a very minor revision to one question I, as a skeptic, would have answered "yes")

A real fact for you: 100% of climate scientists who believed that the climate models were going to be accurate, were wrong.

VST
Bountiful, UT

Dear Judy,

Spoken like a true Massachusetts liberal, by the way.

But here is a not-so-unique concept for you to seriously consider the next time you have an urge to write an opinion letter about attempting to reduce anthropometric global warming:

Until you get India, Russia, and especially China to sign-up to reducing their CO2 emissions, then anything we do here in the U.S.A. to decrease our emissions will be the equivalent of "spitting into the wind."

Demo Dave
Holladay, UT

Actually, Judy, I'd rather have regulations that prevent polluters from contaminating the planet that to merely tax them for doing so.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Wow, I’ve completely changed my views on this because…

@Redshirt1701 - says that climate has historically changed over time and this change is no different and is not man caused and is… what, inevitable? But then he says it’s not changing based on a cherry picked (see, I told Judy) extraordinarily hot year; 1997. Which is it?

@2bits – thinks that math (deduction) is synonymous with science (induction).

@chilly – clearly demonstrated that all polling done on this issue is false… oh wait, I’m confusing “asserted” with “demonstrated.”

…on second thought, I’m not yet convinced guys.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Tyler D,

Are you really serious about having a meaningful scientific discussion about the causes of global warming? Or do you prefer to stay in the realm of political pontifications and “put-downs?”

If you want of have a serious scientific discussion, then let me begin as follows:

First of all, I am convinced that global warming is occurring – it can be scientifically measured.

Secondly, I am convinced that CO2 concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere – it can also be scientifically measured.

Now then, would you seriously consider attempting to scientifically answer the following questions:

1. How sensitive is the overall earth's atmosphere to these increased CO2 forcings? In other words, what percentage of increase in average global temperatures is directly attributable ONLY to these CO2 forcings, be they anthropometrically caused or from other sources?

2. Have any recent current scientific investigations been able to successfully isolate other atmospheric forcings (that can cause increases in average global temperatures on earth) from these increased CO2 forcings?

3. Is it not difficult to isolate and measure the overall sensitivity of each forcing along with their respective interrelationships?

Please include your sources for your scientifically based answers.

jsf
Centerville, UT

Currently with the increased carbon dioxide levels, the earth has greened up by 11%, scientists say this is a direct result. Another benefit they say is that horticulture will use less water for plant growth as the CO2 increases because the plants require less water with increased CO2 and increased temperature. Farmers using less water means more water available in dryer climate areas. Scientist also have found the Redwood forests in California are growing 33% faster with the increased CO2. So again what is the temperature and level of CO2 you think is the right level? And then show scientific evidence to support your belief.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@VST – “Are you really serious about having a meaningful scientific discussion about the causes of global warming? Or do you prefer to stay in the realm of political pontifications and “put-downs?””

That would be great… where do we go to have one?

Seriously, have you not been following the many climate change comments on DN the last couple years? If so, there should be no question in your mind as to where the put downs, obfuscations, misinformation, misrepresentations, and all the other tactics straight out of oil industry talking points are coming from.

But my apologies if I occasionally return like for like… it’s not always easy to take the high road.

Re: your questions – all good, but uh… I’m not a scientist. So what do climate scientists say? If they have answers has it convinced any to abandon AGW?

And that’s the only point I’ve ever made – that the scientific community is overwhelming convinced of AGW (in spite of the many contrary comments here on DN).

Question for others (since you’re convinced) – where is all the extra carbon going? Is the Earth somehow cleaning itself?

redshirt007
tranquility base, 00

Our sustained C02 levels are at a 15 million year high. That's right, 15 million years as reliably measured from ice core samples.

Republicans assure you that it won't do anything because they say so. It just happens to be in their wealthy clients interest to not do anything about it. But that means nothing.

Now stick your head in a plastic bag and see if it does nothing as the CO2 level increases.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

The earth has quit warming, CO2 levels are at an all time high along with the human population, but miraculously the plant life on the planet is flourishing so the increased population can be fed and supplied, despite starvation predictions and other doomsday predictions of the early 1980's.

It is as though an all-knowing God has a plan to make things work out and balance out.

So why would we give liberal alarmists all the wealth of the world? They aren't fixing it. The fix is happening without their help.

Sit back and behold the hand of God. It is glorious!

jsf
Centerville, UT

liberal open mind stick your head in pure oxygen and see what happens. you know because of your medical training CO2 can be a whole lot more and not be an issue. Now some real scientific evidence not silly 3rd grade antics. Evidence please. The temperature please.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

The problems with climate remediation is that the possible benefits are way, way, way out into the future (like a 100 years and for a politician that is practically never), whereas the costs are high and immediate. Our political and economic system simply can't deal with this. The motto of the the political class could well be "what's posterity ever done for us?"

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Tyler D" was man responsible for the midievil warm period? What about the Little Ice Age? During the midievil warm period, global temperatures were warmer than they are today. How is that possible if man causes climate change?

1997 was a warm year, but the question that has yet to be answered is why? Also, why is it that we have not had any statistically significant warming since then? CO2 has increased, but temperatures have stagnated. The climate models say that that is impossible, yet nature has shown that it knows more about climate than our best climatoligists.

The scientific community is less and less convinced of AGW. See "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" in Forbes. Only 36% of geoscientists believe in AGW theories these days.

to comment

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