Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Science consensus is slow, methodical

Comments

Return To Article
  • TomHarrisICSC Ottawa, Canada, 00
    April 29, 2014 1:52 a.m.

    Judging from the above error-riddled comments, I suggest people have a look at this short video of a radio interview I handled on April 21:
    http://tinyurl.com/myglomo

  • J in AZ San Tan Valley, AZ
    April 26, 2014 1:40 a.m.

    When you get right down to it, scientific consensus is meaningless. There was scientific consensus about the geocentric universe a few centuries ago. The scientific consensus was very wrong. The scientific consensus about climate change may or may not be wrong as well. But, the proponents all seem to be telling the people that they must give up freedom and the hope of a better life for them and their children. In fact, they are telling people that they must expect a poorer life in order to 'save the planet.' This just isn't going to work to get people to get on board.

  • Ninjutsu Sandy, UT
    April 24, 2014 3:22 p.m.

    For those who say "Follow the money," in order to find which side if the issue is telling the truth, let's go ahead do that.
    Consider the following scenarios:

    1. The majority of the world’s scientists are cooking the books, manipulating the data, and falsifying, or at least exaggerating, results to make it appear that the earth’s climate is in danger because of man’s behavior. This is to secure funding for their institutions so that they can continue to do research.

    2. The major oil companies who provide most of the country’s fuel are manipulating the media, and using their influence with politicians, to foster doubt about climate change in order to prevent major revenue loss from competing energy sources such as renewables.

    Which is more likely?

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 24, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    To "Schnee" yes RSS and UAH have adjusted their data, but if you bothered to look into why, it has been only to calibrate the readings with a known reading. The GISS data has been adjusted for no other reason than to make the warming more apparent.

    You are also ignoring the simple fact tha the ground based systems are so far apart over much of the globe that between datapoints NASA is doing little more than guessing what the temperature should be.

    So again, why trust faulty data that doesn't cover most of the earth? Knowing that all temperature measurements have been tampered with should bother you and make you question the validity of the results based on that data. Instead, you are doubling down on bad data and insisting that the conclusions are still rght.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 24, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    @Redshirt
    "If you refuse to believe the NOAA and the researchers that have exposed the data alterations by NASA"

    You championed RSS and UAH because they're satellite datasets, only to ignore (if you were aware) that those datasets get adjusted as well. RSS and UAH have undergone adjustments in both directions over the years. There are reasons adjustments are made and rather than figure out the context for them, you just assume there's something sinister in the motives. Plus you ignored the fact that for all your complaints about adjustments to NASA and faults with NOAA, those datasets have trends during the satellite era that lie in between RSS and UAH, the satellite datasets you put more value into. So whatever your problem with them is, it doesn't seem to be hurting anything if they're in between your gold standard.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 24, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal: "...squeal in protest... 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... based entirely on cooked data, carefully, cynically ignoring any data that might fail to confirm pet theories... pre-determined political conclusions... nearly all, yesterday's campus socialist radicals... rigidly orthodox, fat-cat, government-grant-dependent, socialist-leaning 'academics,' people whose primary tactic to advance tenuous theories is the AD HOMINEM ATTACK..." [emphasis added]

    Spoken by an authority on the ad hominem argument. Lessee... accusing your opponents of being intellectually dishonest socialist moochers at the government trough, cynical self-serving radicals who substitute ad hominem attacks for substantive data, all done with the requisite scare quotes. Nope, no irony here. Move along, folks.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 24, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    To "Bebyebe" I am sorry that you can't find the NOAA report, it is available on their website, and the quote I provided was taken directly from it. When I searched for "State of the Climate in 2008" on Google using the quotes, the first result was fro the NOAA website. Do you consider the NOAA website a right wing website.

    I never said that the climate is changing (FYI it always has), just that the temperature models are wrong and the data being fed into the models is altered.

    Where is your proof that I am wrong. I have given you the quote from the NOAA, and have given enough witneses about the temperature alterations that there should be little to no question that there is something wrong going on with climate scientists. If you refuse to believe the NOAA and the researchers that have exposed the data alterations by NASA, that is your choice.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    April 23, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    Redshirt, NOAA doesn't report straight temperatures. It reports temperature changes. Temperatures over all the locations are averaged and are compared from year to year. This is done specifically to avoid the arguement you have just made. So you are wrong.

    As far as a 2008 report by the NOAA, I don't find any reference to it besides right-wing websites. NOAA, for this year, still has all the data for temperature, CO2 levels, spring snow melt, sea level, arctic sea ice, glaciers, snow, & ocean heat. All show warming. The only measurement which doesn't is the Sun's energy. So again you are wrong.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    April 23, 2014 4:18 p.m.

    I'm astonished that so many people won't believe the scientists. Let's just believe them. OK, now that we've gotten past that conundrum, we can begin to examine all the things we can reasonably do about the problem.

    Who should decide what needs to be done? Certainly NOT the politicians, with their rediculous "Global Carbon Tax" proposal. That's just an income distribution scam.

    The only technologies we have to reduce CO2 emissions are those that generate electricity through solar, wind, water, and nuclear power. Of these, nuclear power is the only one that can make a significant difference.

    Why aren't more nuclear power plants being built to replace coal burning facilities? Because of safety regulations that cannot be ignored. We need to look for some compromises here, because the only thing worse than global warming are frequent nuclear meltdowns.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 23, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    To "Schnee" so then you agree that the satelite data has been verified where the land stations exist. But you also must realize that in the ocean, Africa, Australia, and most of Asia the temperature stations are hundreds to thousands of miles apart, so the temperatures are extrapolated and are guesses.

    So again, knowing that we only have 35 years of accurate worldwide data, why put so much faith in extrapolated data that goes back slightly over 100 years? You are looking at 1 page in a 1000 page book and making assumptions over what has gone on before.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 23, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    @The Hammer
    "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"

    Most climate scientists don't get involved in politics.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "We have the controverting satellite and observational data. "
    @Redshirt1701
    " We also know that we have only had the ability to accurately measure the temperature over the entire earth for 35 years."

    During the satellite era UAH had the slowest growth, and RSS the fastest (but not much different than UAH). HADCRUT, NOAA, and NASA-GISS were all in between those two satellite models. That isn't controverting satellite and observational data.

    "people whose primary tactic to advance tenuous theories is the ad hominem attack"

    You just called them socialist radicals...

    @Mountanman
    "CO2 emissions have noting to do with climate change. "

    Absolutely it does. It's a greenhouse gas and in the ice core records they're highly correlated. (Look at the Vostok ice core data). The sun is in its weakest solar cycle in a century, so why did we just have the warmest decade in the modern record?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 23, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    To "marxist" and "Bebyebe" if you look at a map (available through Google Maps) of the locations of the GISS surface temperature stations, there is nothing over the oceans, very few in Africa, and nothing in the artic. Most temperature stations are in the US and Europe.

    Since most of the earth's surface is water, how do you think that they can report on the temperatures in the areas that have few to no temperature sensors?

    To "Bebyebe" lets get into the NOAA quotes.

    From the NOAA report titled "State of the Climate in 2008" the NOAA states "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate." In the NY Post article "Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating" they quote a peer reviewed article that states "that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this pause could extend into the 2030s."

    You see, if you listen to the experts, you find that the models are garbage.

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    April 23, 2014 12:16 a.m.

    Having data as far back as the 1900s is less than a blip on the screen of the history of our earth. As we look at the fossil record we know that this earth has had climate change from the beginning and it wasn't caused by increased carbon emissions. There is plenty of room for skepticism in the climate change theories that exist.

    Its not settled science and there is no consensus as to its cause. I wish there was more sense in the debate but it seems that those who question the Al Gore's of the world are labeled and bullied like nerds in school.

    When a lawyer knows his case is not solid he just starts pounding his fist on the table and that is the reality of the climate change bullies. Deep down you know your case is week and would never stand up to true scrutiny. That is why you are slamming the door shut on people who poke holes in your paper walls and scream and call names and say deniers should be jailed or silenced.

    How sad?

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    April 22, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    @Mike Richards:

    Forbes did not "report" the quote you cited. It was contained in an opinion piece written by Peter Ferrara who is affiliated with the Heartland Institute.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    April 22, 2014 8:36 p.m.

    For Redshirt: Just pointing out all your falsehoods.

    “First, we know that the process is slow. We also know that we have only had the ability to accurately measure the temperature over the entire earth for 35 years.”

    False. NOAA has data from before 1900. The data show temperature increase since 1970.

    “The data used before that is just a best guess for many areas around the earth.”
    See NOAA article sited above. They described the data and how it is treated. 'best guess' is an opinion?

    ”Next, we can go into what the experts have said about their models. According to the NOAA, if we have more than 15 years with no significant warming that would prove the models to be wrong.”

    False. NOAA shows global warming. It shows increases in CO2. And decreased snow cover. And sea level rise. And decrease in artic sea ice. And decreasing glaciers. It also shows little net change in sun's energy for you sun blamers.

    “We are now going on 16 years with no significant warming.”
    False. Each of the last 3 decades has been warmer than the last one. With 2001-2010 was the warmest on record.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2014 6:22 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 " We also know that we have only had the ability to accurately measure the temperature over the entire earth for 35 years. The data used before that is just a best guess for many areas around the earth."

    Well, no, it is not quite as bad as that. We have "records" in tree rings, ice cores, and in the earth's crust which have been used quite effectively in estimating past earth temperature.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 22, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    Scientists have facts, figures and data. Deniers have religion; "god is coming back soon so don't worry, be happy".

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 22, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    @2 bits – “What we DON'T need is... global governance... to FORCE people to do it YOUR way.”

    So the issue is not climate change per se, but that trying to mitigate it MAY lead to global government? That’s a pretty paranoid slippery slope, but OK…

    Actually I’m with you on this. Given the moral development of many of the nations on this planet, I’m not too keen on global government either (e.g., allowing nations like Russia or China, who consistently show little regard for humanitarian causes, veto power over us is foolish). Sadly, we have a lot of evolving to do before our world will look anything like Star Trek.

    So rather than focus on sovereign, market friendly solutions, why do think the Right has adopted the Denial tact?

    Isn’t that a bit like denying the patient has cancer rather than discussing treatment options?

    Regarding your last comment, it was extremely insulting to climate scientists and doesn’t match what I know about them in the slightest.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2014 2:47 p.m.

    There is a huge amount of scientific information about our climate and the way it is changing! Some of the worlds best scientists have talked about it for years! People see what they want, and when they mix ideas with their religion, they will overlook anything! The problem with this issue, I think, is it has somehow, who knows why, been mixed up with religious points of view. Here in Utah, it seems that to be a good Mormon, you shouldn't believe in global warming! Even if a person does not believe in global warming, it is hard to ignore how we are hurting the Earth! Isn't it foolish not to take action to keep are World healthy? People believe in treating the body right! Shouldn't we do the same for our Earth? I don't think it should take a lot of thought to figure this out!

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 22, 2014 2:28 p.m.

    To "marxist" the only way that socialism saves us is by killing off the "surplus" population.

    What about the profit and power that governments gain by promoting the idea of AGW? Governments can raise taxes and control businesses through regulation.

    If capitalism can't deal with climate change because of profits, then governments can't deal with climate change being purely natural because it destroys their justification for their power grab.

    You realize too that right now one of the biggest producers of CO2 is China. You also realize that the air in China is filthy and is polluting the rest of the world.

    The socialist/communist nations that are not heavy polluters have such poor infastructures that they can barely keep their power plants running, so they can't pollute because they can't produce either..

    Capitalists and conservatives are actually strong supporters of the environment, and put their money where their mouth is. Did you know that all of those hunting fees paid by predominantly conservatives and capitalists go to supporing wildlife efforts in the states. Plus it is conservatives that have destroyed the myths perpetuated by radical environmental groups and have kept public lands accessible by people.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    This debate unfortunately demonstrates why capitalist enterprise cannot deal with climate change. The corporations which sponsor Tom Harris' outfit have a profit interest in continued fossil fuel production to the exclusion of solar energy. When you have such an interest, objectivity is out.

    Global capitalism will not deal with global warming. Period. So with apologies to Lenin, what is to be done?

    Only socialism can save us. The fossil fuels industry has its hands on the political levers (of both parties in the United States) and will not be denied. I don't see how the levels of cooperation necessary to save the global environment can come any other way.

    This is not to say that socialist regimes cannot be "dirty." The Soviet Union was in fact one of the worst examples (the record of Russian environmentalists in bringing down that regime is not heralded in the west).

    But since capitalism can't reform itself, what other alternative are there?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 22, 2014 12:45 p.m.

    In the case of Global Warming "Science"... Science consensus is truly slow, but far from methodical.

    "Methodical" means...
    "Done according to a systematic or established form of procedure.
    Orderly, ordered, organized, (well) planned, efficient, businesslike, systematic, structured, logical, analytic, disciplined; meticulous".

    That doesn't describe how Global Warming Science has been done about at all... it relies mostly on anecdotal evidence and fear... not meticulous science.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 22, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    Ok people, lets take a step back and look at what was said here. First, we know that the process is slow. We also know that we have only had the ability to accurately measure the temperature over the entire earth for 35 years. The data used before that is just a best guess for many areas around the earth.

    Next, we can go into what the experts have said about their models. According to the NOAA, if we have more than 15 years with no significant warming that would prove the models to be wrong. We are now going on 16 years with no significant warming.

    You can also look to see what NASA is doing with the raw data collected from their ground based weather stations. They are adjusting the temperature up, and making the problem look more significant than it truely is.

    Finally, you should realize that science is never settled by consensus. It is settled by repeatable experiments or valid models that not only explain the past but can predict the future with 95% certainty.

    So, with global warming we don't have valid models, the data has been tampered with, and the results are not accurate.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 22, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    Good thing none of you voted for Mitt Romney.
    And even better that he didn't win.

    Because, I can't see any of you trashing him for his concurrence with Global Climate change...unless you are hypocrites.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 22, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    Why do I have the suspicion that if we had a global organization to force all countries to be nicer to the planet... that this organization would eventually be infiltrated by people who despise freedom and turn it against us?

    Because I'm paranoid? Or because it's happened every time we've had ambitions for global governance in the past?

    I don't know if you're aware of this but... most nations in the world don't like us a lot. And I really don't think they would bend over backwards to save us.

    That's why I don't want a group of unelected people, that can't be removed by the people no matter how corrupt they become... governing the globe ala the new world order.

    They become too powerful. And as we all know... the lust for this power eventually corrupts people and they start using it for their own benefit and the benefit of their well connected friends (not the little people).

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 22, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Tyler D,

    What we DON'T need is... global governance... to FORCE people to do it YOUR way. That will never work (as long as men are free).

    =========

    You win --

    Let corporations dump whatever they like into rivers and streams,
    add lead to gas and paint,
    go back to cheaper freon,
    spray with DDT,
    I like mercury based chemicals in the environment,
    I prefer throw trash along the highways of America,
    and
    Down with pollution controls and emmission standards of vehicles.

    It's a FREE country, ain't it?
    The Government can't FORCE anyone to do anything!
    hrumpf!

    and let the countries next door do whatever THEY want,
    because it has zero effet on anyone else on the planet.

    What a silly comment.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 22, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    Re: "For the benefit of future generations we need to shift to solar power while we still have economical fossil fuel reserves."

    Well, if you add in breeder fission technologies, fusion technologies, biomass conversion technologies, and wind [the last two being, technically, solar, of course], we're all with 'ya.

    The problem is not the azimuth, but how reckless and ruinous the velocity.

    When we have an assured supply of fossil fuels for, at least the next 500 years, there's no real need to engage in the destruction of the civilized world's economy, in favor of one or another not-ready-for-prime-time scam of the crony capitalists buzzing around the rotting carcass of the Obama regime.

    Least of all some unproven, unprovable AGW hypothesis -- the perennial, almost-but-never-quite-there, string-theory dodge of socialist climate "science."

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 22, 2014 11:10 a.m.

    Tyler D,
    Basic "planet husbandry" is a good thing. And that's mostly what we need (and what I do).

    What we DON'T need is... global governance... to FORCE people to do it YOUR way. That will never work (as long as men are free).

    And I like being free. And doing good things because they are good (not because somebody forced me to do it their way).

    ====

    I like government... just so long we can select our leaders and control them (not them controlling us).

    Remember... "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

    People should do good things because they are good people... not because they fear government retribution.

    ===

    We ALL want a good planet, and happiness. Some are more radical about their level of environmentalism than others... but we ALL love our planet.

    Making Global Warming into Government Policy... is people wanting OTHERS to be just as radical as they are (by force).

    That rarely works. Especially GLOBAL government.

    Who would ELECT these global climate rulers?? If the decide they must destroy the US economy (for the good of the world)... could we stop them??

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    @borox23
    "Remember when the "Science was settled" back in the 70's and the Earth was headed for another Ice Age due to all the junk we were putting into the atmosphere?"

    Back then (post WWII-early 70s) we were throwing all sorts of aerosols into the atmosphere and aerosols do have a cooling influence via something that is called global dimming. That's a large part of the reason why global temperatures during that period were steady to declining slightly. Also created quite a pollution problem. So we regulated them through national and international policy primarily in the 70s. Some geoengineering solutions for addressing climate change involve strategic use of aerosols. The thing is though, there was never a global cooling consensus. The vast majority of the papers then still said warming. (Bulletin of the American Meteorologoical Society article "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus")

    "The term Global Warming was traded for "Climate Change" to fit any variation in climate, cooling or warming."

    Using climate change is to note the breadth of the issue (sea level rise, ocean acidification, glacial retreat etc). It doesn't claim cooling.

  • Lew Scannon Provo, UT
    April 22, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    It seems somehow ironic that it is the conservatives who are dead-set against conservation. Maybe they don't understand the meaning of the word they use to describe their views.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 22, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    @2 bits – “But regardless of their ability to understand the science that controls our climate... I agree that the things they are telling us to do.. are things we should be doing anyway.”

    I’ve been making the same point here for years. All the “huge taxes and government running our lives” hyperbole aside, most of what’s needed to mitigate pollution and move to cleaner energy are no brainers.

    As for the science, be careful not to conflate basic axioms of climate science with cutting edge research. For example, the climate models are being continuously refined in order to make better predictions, but predictions are always the final piece of any scientific puzzle.

    By contrast the basic fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all other things being equal will warm the planet is incontrovertible.

    The fact that the Deniers on this forum continue to argue this point displays amazing scientific ignorance and proof that they were not paying attention in middle school science when Venus was being studied.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 22, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    On the difficulty of reaching "consensus" on science...

    We have "science" so precise that we have full confidence that we KNOW with exactness the forces required to... successfully launch a manned vehicle into space and maintain earth orbit. Or travel to the moon, or land an un-manned vehicle on an asteroid, or on Mars... with almost 100% certainty that the moon and the vehicle will be where they need to be when they need to be... AND we KNOW the exact angle and speed required to get them back safely.

    I would hate to be the first person climbing into a capsule and betting his LIFE that Climate Scientist's have their science figured out...

    With their record of being able to accurately predict things pertaining to their "Science"... that would be a disaster.

    ===

    But regardless of their ability to understand the science that controls our climate... I agree that the things they are telling us to do.. are things we should be doing anyway. So I do them. But not because I believe their predictions. Just because I love the earth and have always done everything in my power to keep it clean.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 22, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    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.

    9:13 a.m. April 22, 2014

    =========

    I work for the Department of Defense.
    I double DOG dare you to put me and everyone else out of work and out on the streets.
    I think Doctors, Firemen, and Policemen share my feelings as well for the very same reason.

    Also -- What is so wrong with cleaner, alternative, and more efficient forms of energy? Other than someone's "job" depends on it?

    [BTW -- If I didn't know so many Chemical Engineers working in the OIL industry making more than double than any other engineering field, then my bleeding heart might cry for you.]

  • silo Sandy, UT
    April 22, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "When you side with those who have received money to produce certain results, you are as guilty as they."

    Mike - you do realize that Harris and his coalition are funded in large part by the Heartland Institute, correct? The same Heartland Institute that argued on behalf of tobacco companies about the safety of cigarettes.

    Does your assertion work both ways, or does it selectively apply only against those ideas you disagree with?

  • borox23 Payson, UT
    April 22, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    I am in full agreement that we should be good stewards of the Earth and its resources; also that God prepared the world with these resources for our use and benefit. Remember when the "Science was settled" back in the 70's and the Earth was headed for another Ice Age due to all the junk we were putting into the atmosphere? Relative to the age of the Earth, this is a complete reversal in the blink of an eye. Now we see that the models were a little off and it is not quite warming as much as was predicted and may be even cooling. The term Global Warming was traded for "Climate Change" to fit any variation in climate, cooling or warming. To me this raises questions as to what is really going on and what is really causing it...this doesn't put me on par with a Holocaust denier despite the labels people throw around. It is legitimate to question who benefits financially from the current movements as there are many who have made tons on Global Warming since the "science is settled" at least for now.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    @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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    @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.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    April 22, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 22, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    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?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 22, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    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.

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    April 22, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    @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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 22, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 22, 2014 8:29 a.m.

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

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 22, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    “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
    April 22, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    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.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 22, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    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.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 22, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 22, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Sensible Scientist Rexburg, ID
    April 22, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 22, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    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."

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 22, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 22, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    "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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 22, 2014 12:37 a.m.

    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.