Comments about ‘Letter: Science consensus is slow, methodical’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 22 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

In his discussions Tom Harris said the American Geophysical Union's conclusions as to climate change are not credible. What? Saying the AGU has no credibility is like saying the New England Journal of Medicine has no credibility.

Tom Harris also said; "...94% of the approximately $1 billion a day being spent worldwide on climate finance being dedicated to trying to stop what might happen in the distant future. Only 6% of it is going to help real people suffering today due to climate change, however caused." This is another way of asking "what has posterity done for us?"

Tom Harris is absolutely positively convinced the AGU is wrong about climate change. How?

Why should I believe Tom Harris against the scientific weight at AGU? Well, I don't.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

"Sorry global warming alarmists but the climate is cooling". That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago.
Why is the climate now cooling? "Solar activity has decreased recently compared to a slight increase in solar activity a decade ago which caused the temporary warming trend."
Use your brains people! CO2 emissions have noting to do with climate change. Its the sun and there is nothing we can do about solar activity. Does this mean we shouldn't do reasonable things to protect the earth from pollution? Of course not but wasting our economy to chase ghosts is futile and even destructive.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Most people who deny the results of scientific discovery by cloaking themselves with a faux scientific tone, use a lot of bad logic, but one of the worst is the assumption that natural development is linear. So if it was this way today and there is a trend in this direction it will be that much more tomorrow.

When you do that anything other than the expected development can be proof that the trend is not true.

In fact natural development is anything but linear, So it's easy to cherry pick those periods of exception and insert them into your linear mind and conclude you're right and science is wrong.

Tom Harris did this numerous times in his article. They aren't hard to find.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Who benefits if "scientists" tell us that we are causing global warming? It's the government that will collect taxes, taxes that it will spend to buy votes by supporting projects and programs not authorized by the Constitution.

Who pays for "scientific" experiments and "research" dealing with "global warming"? Again, it's the government.

When a "scientist" receives a grant to prove that we are causing global warming, what conclusion do you think he will "find"?

Forbes Magazine reported: "Similarly, the theory of man-caused, catastrophic, global warming is embraced not because of any “science,” (that sham is for the “useful idiots,”), but because it is a justification for a government takeover of the energy industry, with massive increases in regulation, taxes and government spending. . . Scientists who go along with the cause are rewarded not only with praise for their worthy social conscience, but also with altogether billions in hard, cold cash (government and environmental grants), for their cooperation in helping to play the “useful idiots."

Sensible Scientist
Rexburg, ID

Science is not a democracy, and has never been ruled by the democratic principle known as "consensus." The reported "consensus" does not, in fact, exist. The word was applied to a very broadly worded survey taken a decade ago that asked whether humans had a "discernible" influence on climate, which, of course, nearly everyone agrees with. That's where the majority opinion ends. Asked more pointed questions, there is widespread disagreement as expected in any complex scientific endeavor.

If we automatically assume that an energy industry expert is biased and therefore discount his ideas, to be fair we must also assume that an expert from the other side is biased and discount their ideas as well. A better approach is to evenly evaluate the arguments from all sides on their merits, trying to set aside our own biases to arrive at the most logical and defensible conclusion. Not many people are able to do that, but it's vitally important.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . no part of the scientific consensus was arrived at by anything other than the deepest, most skeptical study."

Sorry, but that's just utterly, laughably false.

Though they squeal in protest every time it's mentioned, we have the emails between eminent climate "scientists," cynically advising one another on concocting ways to hide, cherry-pick, obfuscate, and "smooth" the data to achieve their pre-determined political goals. We have the controverting satellite and observational data. We have the speeches and activism, based entirely on cooked data, carefully, cynically ignoring any data that might fail to confirm pet theories. We have the non-sequential "scientific" arguments arriving at pre-determined political conclusions. We have the failed predictions from the failed models used to demand resort to failed political positions. We have the background information on today's "scientists," nearly all, yesterday's campus socialist radicals.

But, even if we didn't, a consensus among rigidly orthodox, fat-cat, government-grant-dependent, socialist-leaning "academics," people whose primary tactic to advance tenuous theories is the ad hominem attack, is hardly a solid foundation upon which to base important public-policy decisionmaking.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah
Who benefits if "scientists" tell us that we are causing global warming?

=========

Answer: We ALL do, that's who.

Happy Earth Day.

Utefan60
Salt Lake City, UT

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Of course you would say that if scientists receive a grant then their conclusions will be slanted. That is absolutely not true. You have insulted the many valuable scientists that work diligently to make your life better.

My family supports via endowments many scientists at the University of Utah. Your statement is not only incorrect it is short sighted. But you use the Constitution yet again to explain this one. Your arguments are more for humor anymore than real fact.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Nice to see DN print a letter from someone who actually understands how science works and just what sort of rigor must be developed over an extended period of time to reach a consensus approaching anywhere near 90%.

@Mike Richards – “Who benefits if "scientists" tell us that we are causing global warming?”

It’s a fair question Mike and one that should be weighed (with equal fair mindedness) against the interests of the side determined to keep the petro grave train going as long as possible.

All of this and much more is covered in Dr. Brin’s excellent article on Climate Skeptics vs. Climate Deniers.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

“Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees.” — Rev 9:4

ElderNealA.Maxwell: “True disciples … would be consistent environmentalists—caring both about maintaining the spiritual health of a marriage and preserving a rain forest; caring about preserving the nurturing capacity of a family as well as providing a healthy supply of air and water…Adam and Eve were to ‘dress the garden,’ not exploit it. Like them, we are to keep the commandments, so that we can enjoy all the resources God has given us, resources described as ‘enough and to spare’ (D&C 104:17), if we use and husband them wisely.”

“The outward expressions of irreverence for God, for life, and for our fellowmen take the form of things like littering, heedless strip-mining, heedless pollution of water and air.” — Ezra Taft Benson

“So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are.” — Numbers 35:33
“And it pleaseth God that hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.” — D&C 59:20

~ LDS Church Newsroom

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Noah started building the ark 120 years before it started raining.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Utefan60,

Do you disagree with Forbes? My conclusions are based on authoritative information, some of which I quoted. When you side with those who have received money to produce certain results, you are as guilty as they. Enough scientists have debunked global warming, scientists who were not fed and clothed and housed by government funds, that it is easy to see who was paid and why they were paid.

"Standing up" for fraud is fraudulent. You can bury your head in the sand and tell us that no scientist would ever falsify data, even when he knew that his "sugar daddy" would cut off his funding unless he did so. You can pretend that those "scientists" who told us that we were destroying the earth by living on it have examined all the facts when all the facts are still not known. You can attack the messenger all that you want, but if you read with an open mind, you'll have to agree that those "conclusions" are anything BUT agreed upon.

The Hammer
lehi, utah

@UteFan60

Can't you say that your view insults scientist from the other side that disagree with your biased view?

The problem Global warming scientists have is credibility. They lose it when they try to use their science as a way to sway political opinion through one party one platform and only one way to solve the problem (ie. forcing people through the government strong arm to do things your way).

The science is not settled and as I see it there is know way to settle it because you can't factor in all of the elements in global warming or climate change. You would have to factor in how the Sun ways in and scientist haven't developed a model for it yet. You would have to factor in volcanic eruptions and other things. Also how do we not know that the cooling and the warming are not cylical and come from changes from within our own earth? These areas have not been explored so excuse me if I am a little sceptical especially when you have people on your side fudge data and smear sceptics in such a political way.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

What's wrong with conservation?

What's wrong with recycling?

What's wrong with developing green technology?

What's wrong with being good stewards and not merely big oil pillagers of the earth?

One cannot be a good Mormon and not do everything possible to take care of the earth. Let's stop putting our trust in dirty fuel and start cleaning up our planet.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Tom Harris is a paid dissenter, supported by the 'heartland institute'. Of course science should entertain all valid hypotheses, and climate science is by no means exact. But a consensus is forming, and his theories are tending to fall outside of it. How we approach this consensus will be telling; is it a growing body of evidence on which we should act or is it the Simpson trial where any doubt at all is enough to throw it all out?

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

Maverick. Is your job and your life tied to fossil fuels? Ready to give up your job, destroy our economy and our food supply? We can all hope for cleaner fuels but things are what they are. One can not be a good Mormon and wish suffering upon the human race because of a theory.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mountanman
"sponsored by the Heartland Institute"

I don't see why anyone should get their science from partisan think tanks...

"Its the sun and there is nothing we can do about solar activity."

We have the weakest solar cycle in a century and the warming has only "paused". Shouldn't it be cooling? We've certainly had plenty of La Nina years of late (4 of the past 6 years) to help that cooling along. One might think these negative forcings are merely cancelling out a positive anthropogenic component.

Plot .5sin(x) and pretend that's natural forcings, then plot .1x and pretend that's anthropogenic forcings. Then plot .5sin(x) + .1x and you'll see how pauses in warming can occur despite continued anthropogenic influence.

@Mike Richards
"Who benefits if "scientists" tell us that we are causing global warming? It's the government"

The gov't would much rather spend money on other things (wars, healthcare, whatever) than having to do any sort of disaster prevention.

@procuradorfiscal
"We have the controverting satellite and observational data."

Actually RSS and UAH show similar trends as NASA, NOAA, and CRU.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

@Thid Barker "Ready to give up your job, destroy our economy and our food supply?"

Who or what is asking us to do that? I know I'm not. That is certainly not the position of the AGU.

There's an old saying "Make hay while the sun shines."

For the benefit of future generations we need to shift to solar power while we still have economical fossil fuel reserves. But we need to be doing it NOW.

Mister J
Salt Lake City, UT

to Mike Richards (1st post)...

The whole Cui bono angle was good until you brought up Forbes Magazine.

Forbes IMO is a periodical to promote or apologize for Hard core, no holds barred, extreme rules capitalism.

to comment

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