Published: Sunday, Feb. 23 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
The IPCC actually claims no link between global warming and any sort of
increased frequency in tornadoes anyway. In fact, one might expect fewer
tornadoes in a warming climate since the poles warm more than the tropics
reducing the temperature gradient. That's an example of the
problem that people who consider climate change a serious issue have... a decent
number of them make claims that aren't backed up by the science they claim
to be proclaiming.
When is science settled? In Krauthammer's estimation, and I would agree,
almost never. But at some point, the preponderance of evidence supports a given
result beyond reasonable criticism. I believe this to be the President's
position as well as that of leading climate scientists.A corollary
is smoking and cancer. There is no experimental evidence that smoking causes
long cancer (except in rats). It's all correlational, yet there little
doubt that this is the case (although the tobacco industries have tried mightily
to cast doubt on these findings, much like those who have a vested interest in
denying global warming).
Another one never to be questioned was population explosion. Which has been
failed prophecy many times over. Way to control people.
Great article Dr. Krauthammer! Science is always so fleeting! Everything we
think we know in any science will eventually be proven to be either completely
wrong or at least very incomplete. One things we all need to understand; any
"scientist" that claims to have the final word on anything, including
climate change, is no scientist! As our grandparent's science is to us, so
will our science be to our grandchildren and it is utter foolishness and
dangerous to mix a lot of politics with a little bit of science and call it
Krauthammer, does have a point about the rhetoric, however what is not settled
is what will happen, and not so much what has happened. Even Freemn
Dyson concedes co2 is accumulating at an alarming rate in the atmosphere and
that it is caused by human activity. He simply disagrees with what that means.
Dyson is a good example however. Dyson is a world class physicist
with broad interests and a passion for and an expert in the scientific method.
Thus his debate with climate research. The fact is however that climate
research compared to other scientific subjects is new and the community is
searching around for facts. Dyson is simply saying I'll give you that but
what about..and the vast community is saying we're getting there, and we
believe the arrow still is pointing in this direction.Dyson also did
research into evolution and came up with the idea of a double beginning which
would change the "settled" science of evolution but doesn't change
the fact of "evolution" at all. So Charles rock on with
your semantic war, but be careful with where you aim your skepticism.
Spoken like a paid, Fox New correspondent with little to no background in the
subject. Straddling the fence let's him gather his pay check while not
damanging his "Dr." mantle. No sir, the facts are facts. CO2 trapped in
our atmosphere casuses climate change. Now it you don't want to do
anything and pass that problem on to our children and grandchildren than so be
There have been some pretty cold winters including one recently. How does
global warming account for that? Gravity is settled science. Global warming
isn't. When the doomsdayer population explosion people were wrong they
just tried to cover it up. Electricity gas gives us longer life spans and makes
life more comfortable. Need to keep things clean water and air and businesses
do a good job of it. No proof human activity necessary for survival does
anything to change the climate.
to FT: please address Krauthammer's specific claims, which are also made by
many others, that the earth has not warmed in 15 years, and that we have fewer
hurricanes, and that the models have all been way wrong. Also, contrary to
Gore's predictions, the Arctic ice is still there, plus the Antarctic ice
has been growing to the point it trapped a ship full of climate scientists out
to prove global warming. Now, if the earth does ever warm, this has been
predicted by others to be a net benefit. Sure, it will hurt some, but fewer
people will die of cold weather problems, for example.
It must nice to be able to pick and choose that some concepts need only
circumstantial evidence and some need evidence beyond a shred of doubt.
Is global warming a complex issue? Of course it is. Will climate models
require refining as new data are obtained? Sure, that's how science
works.What is _not_ subject to debate are these simple,
well-established facts:CO2 is a greenhouse gas.Atmospheric CO2 levels are higher now than in the past several hundred
thousand years, and climbing rapidly.The CO2 that's being
loaded into the atmosphere has been traced to the combustion of fossil fuels.Globally, our climate is changing, and changing rapidly - tremendously
faster than natural climate change. Arctic ices are shrinking rapidly and
getting thinner. Worldwide, glaciers are in high-speed retreat. Globally, January 2014 was the hottest January since 2007 and the fourth
highest average temperature for January since formal temperature records began
in 1880. January 2014 was also the 38th consecutive January and 347th
consecutive month (almost 29 years) with a global temperature above the 20th
century average. Australia is in the middle of a severe heat wave.
Much of the western US in in a condition of severe drought.Krauthammer's article is akin to saying that because cancer is complex
and some findings about cancer detection are now being questioned, that
therefore cancer doesn't exist.
Immutability and scientific concepts are antithetical. Science is living,
changing and hopefully improving. Jimmy Carter said during his presidency that
the world would run out of fossil fuels very soon, perhaps a decade. Leave
science, uninfluenced by political pressure and the love of money, to find its
@higv"There have been some pretty cold winters including one recently.
How does global warming account for that?"Weather patterns (okay
I realize that this is going to result in "oh sure you all only say that for
cold events" comments so I'll explain now).Think of it this
way. Let's pretend there's no warming at all for 100 years. Same
global temperature average every year. Weather patterns will lead to say the
Eastern US having a cold winter one year, and Western Europe having a warm
winter that same year (so that everything is balanced globally). Maybe another
winter Western US is warm and Russia is cold, etc. etc. We should
expect the same thing with weather patterns (some colder some warmer) in a
warming climate too, but the overall average should be going up. So let's
take this past January which was a top ten coldest January in some Eastern
states. Globally it was 1.17C above average, the 4th warmest January on record.
That +1.17C is the climate change/global warming signal. The variation from one
place to another is the influence of the weather patterns that occurred during
" Gravity is settled science. Global warming isn't." Really? Care
to tell us just what gravity is? There is a whole community of physicists who
would be enthralled if you could tell them what it was.
No, science is never fully settled. The models are approximations only (because
they are models, not reality). We will only EVER know how accurate or
inaccurate they are until after-the-fact. And models (all scientific models)
are fully accurate only by a bit of chance.Models cannot predict
exact outcomes (again, except by chance) but rather general trends. And the
general trends are clear. We can argue whether we are 20 degrees to the left or
20 degrees to the right, but the general direction is still clear.Time to stop the word games and hiding behind definitions that do not really
define anything.Science is a building process over time. But we
have enough data to make reasonable decisions now.Waiting for
perfect knowledge mean we have waited so long that we no longer have the ability
to change course. Not a wise move.
Yes, science is ever-changing. So we should never accept any of its conclusions
and always assume we can live as we always have without any consequences. Mr.
Krauthammer, I accept your position and agree we should be skeptical. But you
have demonstrated exactly what is wrong with the non-science community through
this article by ignoring the preponderance of successful diagnoses based on
science and selecting only those example that fit your agenda of suggesting
science leads to false conclusions. The vast majority of science-based
conclusions lead us forward. Occasionally (and maybe even often) we have
examples such as the mammogram. But those are the exceptions, not the rule.
"Settled Religion" has proven to be far more dangerous in the historical
Excellent article by Dr. Krauthammer.Dr. Krauthammer said: "If
climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing?" This
statement goes to the heart of the issue.Consider: 1)
The arctic ice sheet has grown by nearly 60% in 2013, 2) Leaked documents from
Fifth Assessment Report of the UN IPCC have overestimated warming on their
climate models, and have shown NO WARMING for the past 16 years, 3) The monster
storms and hurricanes that we were warned about never came to fruition, 4) The
arctic ice that the AGW crowd said would be gone by 2013 has grown (See No. 1),
5) Top AGW "scientists" were shown to have manipulated their data
supposedly confirming AGW was taking place, 6) Scientists are now concerned the
lack of sun spot activity means we're going to a cooling phase, and 7) The
Polar Vortex hitting our nation.As Dr. Krauthammer said: "So
much for settledness..."
When I find out that I getting bad information, trust in lost. Belief is only
something I can count on or depend on.
Science is fleeting. I can agree that science changes over time. That is how
science is designed. "Utter foolishness and dangerous to mix a
lot of politics with a little bit of science and call it fact!"Yes many people want to mix a lot of Religion into politics and be completely
at ease.I can assure you that throughout the world, there is much
more disagreement by "religious experts" concerning Religion, than there
are Scientific experts concerning Climate change.Could we all agree
with Dr K when he says "I've long believed that it cannot
be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere."So, then the question becomes, "What should we
do about that?"
Kings CourtAlpine, UTAgreed....Nations and
Terrorists are killing each other to "Settle Religion", Science?
Not so much so...Because -- Science deals with Facts and Data, not
feelings or opinions...BTW -- I am very Religious, and very
Scientific.I can be done, I use feelings and the Spirit help me
understand God, I use facts and Data to help me understand His Creations.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments