Published: Sunday, April 20 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
@Thid BarkerWe 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
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.
@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.
@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
@Thid BarkerVictor, IDSeventh grade physics shows that our
sister planet - Venus - has a surface temperature of over 800 degrees, because
it's atmosphere is mostly CO2.M
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, 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".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.
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.
@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.
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?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments