Comments about ‘My view: Anti-science ruins the climate debate’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 20 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

In other countries this is not even an issue anymore. They are taking action despite the US.

I've come to realize that if our forefathers had plowed this land for thousands of years we might be more enthusiastic about keeping the land and air in good shape.

We drive this country like we stole it - because we did.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

"While environmental change has always presented serious problems for societies that did not properly adapt, it is almost certainly nature, not humankind, that controls the climate of planet Earth."

Whoa! The writer denounces the bulk of climate science for what he sees as their dogmatism about the importance of human discharged CO2 in climate change, and then he makes this whopper of a statement!

The vast majority of climate scientists and geophysicists believe that global warming is due to human discharged CO2. They also believe that the consequences could be very bad. Sea level countries already face being wiped out. And countries which depend on glacier runoff face drought with the disappearance of those glaciers.

The physical science of thermodynamics demonstrates the importance of migrating away from fossil fuels, which burning increases the chaos in the biosphere, to solar which is an unlimited flow.

Lastly, the advice of the writer to in essence "burn baby burn" is irresponsible in the extreme. Also, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the writer wasn't part of a fossil fuel trade group.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Don't know these authors but a quick search shows them to be mathematicians. So let me take a guess and say that they beef with the "science" of climate change is the modeling.

Succinctly put the true believers beat you all to this topic. They all ready know the problems with the past models. Models are always tricky especially as a topic unfolds. However, the fortunate thing about climate science is pure modeling is not the only science climate change is based on.

The observable sciences such as geology, biology, hydrology, etc. all support the premise of the climate is changing and humans are having a major impact on that change. When you can see what is happening to glaciers, sea level, and sea content, and compare that to now known history it's far different than pure mathematical speculation based on few known facts.

BTW observable facts do say the models were wrong...it's far worse than they said.

micawber
Centerville, UT

And yet, McKitrick and Essex got their book published, Charles Krauthammer's opinion piece was published and the Deseret News published this piece. According to the web-page of the ICSC, where the author of this piece is the director, he "is regularly published in newspapers in Canada and the U.S. and occasionally in Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and other countries. He is often interviewed on radio and occasionally TV." In addition, there are any number of websites saying climate change science is wrong.

If there is an effort to prevent people from expressing skepticism about climate change, it may be the single most ineffective effort in history.

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

I can't believe the Deseret News is taking the Anti-Science position.
It certainly has taken a REALLY hard right turn in the last 3 months...

If 49 out of 50 Doctors told your son or daughter had cancer,
and left untreated, would surely die --

And one "Doctor" told you the rest were quacks,
and only he was telling the truth,
and hired college drop out on the radio to repeat HIS message...

Who would you listen to?
The 49, or the one?

FYI --
If you think "God" is causing environmental trouble on us in the latter-days,
You better think again.

Earthquakes in Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Diverse places?
God didn't cause that - fracking did.

Vapors in the air, chocking and killing -
God didn't cause that - pollution did.

A Gospel principle teaches:
We bring calamities on our own selves.

Water we can't drink,
Air we can't breath,
food we can't eat.

The scriptures only tell these things will happen.
it NEVER says God would cause them.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect. Yes, there is a greenhouse effect, but it's mostly caused by water vapor! H2O is much lighter than CO2.
College freshman statistics will show you that the error rate in temperature samples used is greater than the claimed temperature rise.
Glaciers in Greenland have recently been shown to be getting thicker, not thinner. Same with Antarctic ice, which is never mentioned by warming alarmists.
We just has one of the coldest if not the coldest winters in decades in the N. Hemisphere. In fact, the earth is in a cooling cycle now due to the sun's activities over which mankind has no control.

Sensible Scientist
Rexburg, ID

The current climate alarmism is based on two false premises. First, that without anthropogenic CO2, climate would remain static; and second, that the average temperature during [pick a decade] was the "right" temperature, and any deviation from that is caused by mankind. A third false assumption might be that a warmer world would be somehow worse for mankind.

All three are manifestly false. Climate is always changing naturally and it is impossible to separate out an anthropogenic component. Some decades and centuries have been warmer than today, some cooler. There is little correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures over the past century -- temperatures decreased 1940-1980, and have been flat since 1998.

Does that mean we do nothing about air pollution? Of course not. But it means we should not panic and ruin economies and standards of living to chase ghosts we can never catch.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

RE: Thid Baker "Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect. "

Ridiculous nonsense. But here's the game. Climate change deniers can raise bogus arguments. Because most people don't have the time or knowledge to make an informed judgement, the deniers can maintain a degree of credibility though undeserved. Apparently the Deseret News wants to grant the deniers credibility through continuing to run these pieces. Why?

I notice none of the deniers want to look at thermodynamic arguments for solar energy. Why?

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

This being Easter, perhaps we should reckon with the point of view which has it that since the Second Coming of Christ will fix any and all environmental problems, why sweat it?

But as per the 6,000 year old earth such should have already occurred. How far out are we talking about? 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 200 years, or maybe never? If trends continue our grandchildren and great grandchildren will live in an inhospitable world. We may be on our own here on spaceship earth, not a pleasant thought but a real possibility.

Bebyebe
UUU, UT

Was Krauthammer's article published?

If he wrote an article on such a controversial topic he should expect a response. In fact that's why the newspaper published, to get readers. He wasn't arrested. His opinion was criticized. It's not censorship.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

My word thirdbarker, you copied directly from global warming rake 01.

As long as we're copying and pasting, here's your answer to number one.

Gases that make up the atmosphere separate and form layers, with carbon dioxide near the bottom, if they were not disturbed. However, that is not what happens due to winds. Winds constantly stir up the gases that make up the atmosphere, which homogenizes it. This allows denser gases to rise and lighter gases to sink.

We could go on and debunk all the rest of your nonsense but why waste the time. Most of is pretty obvious and a tee time awaits..far more productive.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Thid Barker

We are talking about "global climate change" not "this winter in New Hampshire."

While you may have experienced a cold winter, the real question was about the rest of the globe. You had snow this winter, but on many days cities in Alaska were among the warmest in the country; the Pacific Rim, including all of Australia, was having record hot months. (Not days. Record hot months.)

Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice is thickening, however Antarctic land ice is being lost at an unprecedented rate. The former is part of winter, the latter is loss of ice that has formed over thousands of years and actually raises sea level as it melts.

The real question is not how warm or how cold it is in any spot on any given day. The question to ask is how many record setting warm days are we having around the globe compared to record setting cold days. Over the last decade, globally, we have seen twice as many record hot days as record cold days.

Looking at a trend globally, not at a random day or local area.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Changing the way we produce energy would cut into the profits of oil companies. Big Oil owns the GOP. So of course repubs would be against global warming.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Thid Barker
"Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect."

Venus has an extremely dense mostly CO2 atmosphere, if what you said were accurate that wouldn't be possible.

"Yes, there is a greenhouse effect, but it's mostly caused by water vapor!"

That part is true, roughly 90% of the greenhouse effect is caused by H2O.

" H2O is much lighter than CO2. "

And that's not the reason for it, there's just much higher H2O concentrations in the atmosphere than CO2.

"College freshman statistics will show you that the error rate in temperature samples used is greater than the claimed temperature rise. "

You know how in polls a 200 person survey may be +- 4.5% while a 2000 person survey's +- 2%? With vast numbers of global observations (land or satellite) that we have... the margin of error gets pretty low so no, this statement is incorrect.

"Glaciers in Greenland have recently been shown to be getting thicker"

False.

"Same with Antarctic ice"

That's not contrary to the climate change expectation due to how much colder Antarctica is.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Thid Barker
"We just has one of the coldest if not the coldest winters in decades in the N. Hemisphere. "

False. It was one of the warmest winters on record in the N. Hemisphere. It was one of the coldest in decades in the eastern U.S.

" In fact, the earth is in a cooling cycle now due to the sun's activities over which mankind has no control."

La Nina's 4 of the past 6 years and the weakest solar cycle in a century would do that. But... just one question. If the natural patterns say we should be cooling, why is temperature "flat" the past dozen years in the warmest decade on record, like you all like to say?

@Sensible Scientist
"temperatures decreased 1940-1980"

Aerosols have a cooling effect and we were throwing all sorts of them in the atmosphere in that span, then we regulated them because it was a pollution problem.

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

@Thid Barker
Victor, ID

Seventh grade physics shows that our sister planet - Venus - has a surface temperature of over 800 degrees, because it's atmosphere is mostly CO2.

M

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

McKitrick, one of the economists that wrote the book Taken by Storm, sits on the Acedemic Advisory Board of the Cornwell Alliance. The following is taken from Wikipedia.

McKitrick is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[9] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".[10]

Is information like this important when discussing a book written by this author? I think so. Nevertheless, the writer of the editorial choose not to include it.

chilly
Salt Lake City, UT

Roughly 2000 gigatons of CO2 have been emitted from human sources since 1850. 73% of this has come from fossil fuels. Since 2001 around 440 gigatons of CO2 have been emitted by humans - 88% of these emissions, from fossil fuels. So, about 22% of all human CO2 emissions since 1850 have occurred since 2001. Yet there has been no increase of the global average temperature for more than 17 and one half years.

Congrats to the Des News for printing at least this one article presenting a counter point of view to the doom and gloom scare stories we usually see here.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Thid Baker: According to the American Geophysical Union (the professional society of our nation's physicists) global warming is being caused by human activity and we need to take urgent action to slow it down. Apparently PhD physics knows a little more than 7th grade physics.

4601
Salt Lake City, UT

Screwdriver,
From whom did we steal this country? The Mexicans, the French, the Spanish or maybe the English? And who did they steal it from, the Indian tribes? And how did they acquire it, through a realtor and a mortgage company?

to comment

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