Comments about ‘Cruz, Krauthammer: Climate change not settled science’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 21 2014 10:25 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

No field of science is ever completely settled. We don't know every detail of how gravity works, but that does not mean we should question the heliocentric theory of the solar system. The same is true for global warming, we don't know every detail, but we do know that it's happening, and we know that carbon emissions are the most significant cause.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

We have scientific evidence from atmospheric monitoring posts that the world's CO2 level is higher now than any time in the last 10 million years. You can watch the arctic ice pack, the Greenland glacier, and for that matter, every glacier on the planet melt away practically in front of your eyes. Those glaciers were over 10,000 years old, and now they're disappearing. The sea level is rising. The added water vapor in the atmosphere, and the loss of an anchor point for the arctic vortex, is resulting in extraordinarily violent weather, with increasing frequency that seems to be accelerating.

And you want to deny that any of this has anything to do with dumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Nothing to do with digging up and "liberating" all that carbon that Mother Nature took hundreds of millions of years to sequester beneath the surface so we could have a temperate biosphere?

What is wrong with you? On what possible basis can you simply close your eyes to the evidence right in front of us? Industry financing?

Salt Lake City, UT

"Contrary to all the theories that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. "

Actually natural forcings, like the weakest solar cycle in a century, suggested we should've been cooling the past decade if there were no anthropogenic climate change, but instead we had the warmest decade in the modern record.

Columbus, OH

Science isn't ever settled, on that point he's right. But that doesn't mean there can't be consensus on something. Consensus means that given the evidence, there is currently no reason not to believe something is the way it is. Gravity is a great example, and we've found it's not as simple as originally thought, but that doesn't change its fundamental reality. Consensus comes into play when the vast majority of scientists studying a given phenomenon agree that it's likely, unless new evidence can be provided to the contrary. Currently, the scientific community has reached consensus that global climate change is real, and it's likely man is the contributing factor.

I think it's amusing that people believe people can't have that big of an impact. Humans have shown tremendous ability to completely demolish entire ecosystems throughout the world. It's true that we won't destroy the whole Earth, but the process of regeneration is one that won't be conducive to our current form of existence.

t-ville, UT

There's a vice grip on relenting to the impact of new information from the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party. This is no longer about political persuasion and resisting drastic in favor of gradual change in society, it's a blatant disregard for those engaged in scientific inquiry. When facts get in the way of the narrative, drop the facts first.

Salt Lake City, UT

"On Feb. 20, Cruz told CNN’s chief congressional correspondent Dana Bash that global warming is not supported by scientific data." As to global warming itself - who needs science? The Arctic Ocean will soon be an open sea at least half of the year. The Greenland ice sheet is melting. The permafrost in Alaska is thawing out - it isn't perma any more. Sea level is rising at an alarming rate, threatening coastal communities and sea level countries. I can only conclude that Cruz is not only ignorant of science period, he can't make an unbiased observation of the physical world.

Cruz also demonstrates the downside of religion in our civic life (though it has an upside too). Cruz like his father simply turns to the Bible when the real world gets too tough.

Houston, TX

Some part of the atmospheric science is certain, including the near certainty that CO2 levels have risen over the past century. The respectable theory postulates that as this increases it will lead to a dramatic increase in global temperatures.

However, the theory did not anticipate that global temperatures have not risen over the last 15 years. Surprisingly, there are a few glaciers that have grown. The uncertain aspect of this issue is that extraordinary volcanic eruptions could reverse this trend overnight.

Beyond the question of settled science, the political solution proposed (national carbon credits) to solve the problem is the most questionable aspect of all.

Salt Lake City, UT

Krauthammer “There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge,” Well of course, all science is theory. But in the sciences and in mathematical statistics we deal with likelihood. In math stat we actually have likehihood functions to express the likehihood something is a correct hypothesis. From this point of view, global warming is pretty close to being an established fact, like 99.99%.

Cedar Hills, UT

As with everything - the far left uses fuzzy logic to promote political causes. Global warming is one of those things. We get some half baked far fetched hysteria garbage from a known liar - Al Gore - and the left starts foaming at the mouth and barking and running in circles that the polar ice caps are melting and we have to shut down all coal fired plants and all drive electric smart cars. Anyone who dares cast doubt is labeled a flat earth idiot. Same ole same ole. Is it any wonder there is such a HUGE rift between the left and right in this country?

American Fork, UT

Republican science is the science you do to make yourself feel good, or to make sure you don't have to do anything at all. Or, maybe it's the OJ defense strategy; a shred of doubt is all you need to discredit everything.

Richfield, UT

@ A Quaker:

You've made some debatable contentions as if they were settled science. You provided a classic example of what this article is all about.

There was probably higher CO2 levels during prehistoric times when there were massive volcanic eruptions contributing to the demise of dinosaurs.
Other than that, how are CO2 levels determined from 10,000,000 years ago? Theories and guesstimates don't equate to established, undebatable science.

It's truly interesting how some people perceive their own viewpoints as "settled science" when they no longer desire to debate that viewpoint or have a hard time doing so.

Dr. Charles Krauthammer is a very intellegent and well educated man. His assertion to claims of settle science being a mockery to true science ring true. Scientific advancements are often driven from debate, even if one side can't see beyond their own personal perceptions. Many current environmentalists (and commenters on this page) seem totally closed minded to this.

A person can be a true believer in man-made climate change without having to claim it's settled science. The obvious fact that additional data could eventually surface to either support or repute belies the "settled science" assertion.

Richfield, UT

@ Esquire:

What established facts can you offer as proof that "99% of science" agrees on this issue... as you stated? It would seem you are trying to bolster your argument with made-up stats.

@ Marxist:

Same question and assertion applies to you with your "99.99% established fact" statement. Where did you get that statistic from? Since when do made-up statistics from the top of one's head help to settle anything? It simply causes that person to lose credibility.

Having to revert to such tactics demonstrates this is far from being a fully decided issue... except to closed minded individuals incapable to even seeing anything beyond than their own viewpoints.

Also, you state that "Cruz often turns to the Bible whenever real life gets too tough". What proof have you of that statement? In actuality, he seldom turns to the Bible in political debates or anywhere else except possibly in church. Made up statements in an attempt to discredit others with whom you disagree is subversive and juvenile.

This issue (and article) could and should be debated a lot less contentiously.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

Centerville, UT

God created the earth to provide a place for the human family to learn, progress and improve. God first created the earth and all living things spiritually, and all living things have great worth in His eyes.

The earth and all things on it should be used responsibly to sustain the human family. However, all are stewards — not owners — over this earth and its bounty and will be accountable before God for what they do with His creations.

Approaches to the environment must be prudent, realistic, balanced and consistent with the needs of the earth and of current and future generations, rather than pursuing the immediate vindication of personal desires or avowed rights. The earth and all life upon it are much more than items to be consumed or conserved. God intends His creations to be aesthetically pleasing to enliven the mind and spirit, and some portions are to be preserved. Making the earth ugly offends Him.

The state of the human soul and the environment are interconnected, with each affecting and influencing the other. The earth, all living things and the expanse of the universe all eloquently witness of God.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Svante Arrhenius showed that increased carbon in the atmosphere would lead to higher temperatures. He did this in 1896. All Gore had no influence on his research.

salt lake city, UT

Dr. Krauthammer also knows who butters his bread. Scientist know the CO2 levels from 10,000 year ago by taking ice samples that were created during this era. Yes science results can change and be altered. But we have alot of evidence at this time that indicates the earth is warming at an incredible rate. Also, 98% of climate scientist (not Fox politcal analysts) agree with this assessment and think man's CO2 emissions have played a role in it. Lets leave science to the scientist and politcs to our friends at Fox.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

When Al Gore says we have "Consensus".. we have consensus.

But I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.

According to Webster it means "a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by ALL the people in a group".

So unless the "group" is defined as Al Gore and people who agree with him... we don't have full "Consensus" yet.

Not even all climate scientists claim to have consensus on this. A majority vote is not the same as "Consensus". Even a super-majority. Consensus means "ALL" in the group.

We may not have consensus... But we do have enough evidence that we need to do better on our emissions to start paying more attention and doing everything we can to limit or eliminate what we consume and what we emit.

So I think we should individually do everything we can to limit our consumption and our pollution. But we should NOT try to use this as an excuse to establish the new world order, meaning Global Governance (by a group of non-elected people who may or may not represent the will of the people).

Centerville, UT

My post was taken from lds.org.

Might I also add Mormon 8:31 "Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations;"

And again Mormon 8:38 "O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker".

It seems that ancient prophets who saw our time were more concerned with the pollution of the soul, and the pollution of the soil.

We should concern ourselves with exercising appropriate stewardship of all that God has given us. We must maintain the earth, the land, the water, the air, and all things to keep them beautiful.

But at the same time we must also keep the commandments of God. Honesty, morality, chastity, sexual purity, pure thoughts, purity of heart, caring for the poor among us, not consuming and spending more than we can (debt), kindness, love, charity.

None of us are perfect. But we can keep our environment clean in every way.

Centerville, UT

The impact of global warming in the region has been controversial since an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report wrongly claimed in 2007 that glaciers in most of the greater Himalayan range could vanish by 2035

The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlaya, are in fact advancing

Scientists have measured new ice in Montana's Glacier National Park and atop Colorado's Front Range mountains. In northwest Wyoming, there is photographic evidence of snowfield growth

All seven glaciers on California's Mount Shasta are growing. This includes the state's largest, the three-mile-long Whitney Glacier. Three of Mount Shasta's glaciers have doubled in size since 1950.

The Nisqually Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. The Emmons Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. Glaciers on Glacier Peak in northern Washington are growing.

Richfield, UT

@ FT:

You missed the age question by 1000x.
Ice glaciers are admittedly 10,000 years old. But Quaker is claiming we have more CO2 levels now than anytime in the last 10,000,000 (that's ten million) years.

A person can't make conclusions from a vastly earlier era using data from sources only 1/1,000 of that timeframe. In other words, it's impossible for ten thousand year old glaciers to reveal anything from an era nearly ten million years before they existed.

Where exactly does your 98% statistic come from? Hopefully, that wasn't another arbitrary figure from the top of your head. If so, it means absolutely nothing. A valid source would be much more helpful to establish any credibility.

BTW: Dr. Krauthammer has previously written more science related articles that most people commenting on this post have probably even read. Perhaps you missed the part in the article which quoted him as saying he doesn't take a stance on either side of the global warming debate. He simply contends that it's absurd for either side to claim any "settled science".
So who exactly is it that "butters your bread"?

to comment

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