Published: Friday, Feb. 21 2014 10:25 a.m. MST
@Copacetic: That big dinosaur extinction event was 66 million years ago.As for how they determine historical CO2 levels, you'll have to ask
a scientist. I know it has something to do with ice core samples, fossilized
plankton, petrified tree rings, limestone formation and things like that.I did look up the articles again (in both National Geographic and WSJ)
about the 400 ppm levels recently measured, and it referred to the Pleiocene as
the last epoch that had levels that high. The Pleiocene was from 3 to 5 million
years ago, not 10 million as I thought I had remembered reading, so please
accept this correction to my post.@2Bits: You're confusing the
notion of consensus with the notion of unity. Having sat through many a Quaker
business meeting, I can assure you they're not the same thing.Besides, who are you going to believe? Civil servant government scientists
and university researchers from every Western nation on the one hand, or public
relations flacks and hired spokesmodel scientists for the fossil fuel industries
on the other? Who's got money on the line in this "debate?"
Settled or not... we all know we need to take care of this planet (it's a
commandment).So we should do whatever we can to care for it. But
we need to get over this attitude that if somebody else doesn't get as
radical about their conservation or their environmentalism as YOU do... I am
terrible.We can all have differing levels of radicalization on
this... and still be OK.It doesn't mean I WANT polluted air, or
I LOVE polluted water, or I HATE the planet.We all want clean air,
clean water, and no... nobody wants to destroy the earth.If we can
accept that.... we can all get along a lot better, and focus on making progress,
instead of just shouting past each other (when we all really want the same
thing, just different paths).
A Quaker,I got my definition of "Consensus" from Webster's
dictionary (online). So maybe he got it wrong?Or maybe it is you
who has the wrong definition of "Consensus" in his head."Consensus" doesn't mean a majority vote, or most people mostly
agreeing. It means all are in agreement (at least that's what
Webster's Dictionary says).But I acknowledge that
"Consensus" is an oft mis-used word.So by the definition they
evidently use in Climate Science... maybe it does just mean most people
agree.Regardless... we all need to work, not just talk.As long as I am doing my best... I think that's all you can expect of me.
I'm not responsible for how you, or everybody else in the world acts.
Pretending you can control the world, or how much they pollute, is delusional
(IMO).And thinking if anybody isn't as radical as you are about
it they are wrong... is a thought process that leads only to frustration. We all like the earth. Nobody wants it to be destroyed.
Don't try your Jedi mind tricks on me Krafty, it only works on
@ CopaceticKrauthammer is a medical Doctor. I would take his opionion on
a medical issue over a climate scientist but not when it comes to global climate
change. The 98% number of climate scientist who agree upon CO2's impact to
the earth's changes are easy to find. Just google it. My issue with
conservatives or liberals is they always think to know more than anyone else.
What they have is opinions. When it comes to science I'll leave it to the
people who practice it and have to have their findings supported by their peers.
When it comes to politics I'll go to politcans. Krauthammer is an
entertainer as well as a Doctor and he knows Fox's audience and management.
He'd be out of a job if he came out and refuted the climate deniers.
Straddling the fence as he is let's him hold on to his job while providing
some type of credence to him being a man of science and deep thought.
Tell these guys to get Utahans to ignore the inversions.
Opinions is like the weather. Any one know a man of principles.
The consensus of scientists has been used as a political tool to stir people up
to a false notion that we have some great influence over our planet.The problem with this is it takes away from the science of climate change. Our
climate has been changing all the time. Our earth is not going to be the same in
every spot. And it is important to look at how we are effecting climate change
so we can make well thought out adjustments to better care for our
environment.Unfortunately the climate conspiracy theorists have
gotten a hold of this science and are using it to form some political movement
to turn everyone but the very elite back to the stone age (insert Al Gore's
extravagant life style anywhere). They exaggerate claims, falsify and fabricate
data, and coerce and abuse peoples dedicated work to prop up their political
movement. They are even going as far as attempting to silence those who have
different scientific findings then their limited world view.Climate
alarmists have lost their credibility and are taking down the very important
work of climatologist the world over.
“'There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that
science is settled, static, impervious to challenge,' Krauthammer
wrote.”---------------------------------This is a point
I've been making for at least the last couple of decades.The
puritanical kind of mentality that has risen from those who are arrogant enough
to declare anyone voicing a note of skepticism regarding the "science"
of global warming/change/etc. is so utterly antithetical to true science it is
disgusting to any true scientist, of which I'm one.If
"consensus" were the only criterion for determining scientific
"fact" (i.e., "settled science") then the evidence in 1998
showing that the universe is not only expanding but that the expansion is
**accelerating** would have had to be discarded.As any student of
physics 101 knows, the force of gravitation as we knew it for the prior couple
hundred years (not much more "settled" than that) simply didn't
allow for such a thing. It was **impossible**! Yet, the evidence proved
otherwise and so all the "settled" science that precluded such fact is
now in the process of revision, using mysterious terms like **dark** (as in,
inexplicable) matter/energy. It's all very unsettling.
Wow, what a feeding fest. It is amazing though to see a topic like
"climate change" that is about first of all an earth that is over 4
billion years old, and human influence that likely is about 50,000 years old,
when agriculture started, discussed within the context of a decade and ice being
added to some glaciers in the last couple of years. It's
actually disheartening though to see something as important and complex as our
environment reduced to biblical stories, political talking points, and random
observations, all the time choking on air that you can taste.
The necessary piece of evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes global warming would
be a mathematical correlation between changes in atmospheric CO2 and global
temperature. But there is no correlation. A lot of very smart people have spent
30 years and billions of dollars trying to find it, but without success. There
is no amount of anecdotal evidence - which is about all we ever see any more on
the subject - that will overcome this simple fact, that based on the empirical
data, atmospheric CO2 does not drive global temperature.
The idea about the effects of increasing CO2 on the atmosphere has existed in
the scientific community for years. Al Gore just publicized it. If
we continue to pollute the earth it eventually will be unfit to live on. If we
continue to reproduce we will use up every resource we need. The earth will
survive just fine. We however will be extinct.
Here we go again! It I a all going to come down to two men huddled around the
last berry bush? This crowd ought to do something constructive in life besides
looking at every cloud in the sky and counting the number of water drops in a
wait...Al Gore said it was a settled science. Isn't that enough?? The man
invented the internet I'm certain his global warming hysteria is just as
accurate. Hey...how about that heat wave on the east coast!!! If anything
liberals are predictable.
Below is a quote of facts from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).Read it and judge for yourself. Thicker on top, more down underFebruary 5, 2014"Arctic sea ice extent remained lower than
average in January, and just within two standard deviations of the long-term
average. Arctic temperatures remained above average, even as cold winter air
embraced North America. The retention of more sea ice in September 2013 has
increased the overall thickness and volume of the ice pack compared to recent
years. Antarctic sea ice remains significantly more extensive than average."
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments