Quantcast

Comments about ‘Carbon illusion’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 5 2014 9:06 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

JThompson/LWhite,

You persist in misstating what I've said by appealing to the authority of scientists who have allegedly disproven global warming. I don't understand how my comments can be interpreted in that way except as deliberate spin.

What was quoted was not from the scientific report in question. It was from an anti-science website twisting the report's findings to support its views and inferring beyond the report's scope to suggest NASA debunked global warming. That is incorrect. I'm "smearing" and "rebutting" the site, not scientists.

The report doesn't attempt address global warming at all. It observes atmospheric deflections of recent high-energy solar eruptions. But global warming isn't concerned with deflections, it's concerned with trapping the energy that's actually absorbed over long periods of time. It's vital to understand what the evidence is and what question it answers.

This information is readily available with 10 minutes of searching to see for yourself. It highlights the need to critically evaluate evidence instead of regurgitating what fits your point of view. Chastise Richards and the proprietors of the site he cribbed "evidence" from for that, not me.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

if we stopped pumping excess carbon onto the atmosphere totally now, a national geographic article indicated in would still be four to five hundred years to get rid of excess man made carbon. Wait till every one in China and Mexico has two cars and an SUV too.

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT
if we stopped pumping excess carbon onto the atmosphere totally now, a national geographic article indicated in would still be four to five hundred years to get rid of excess man made carbon. Wait till every one in China and Mexico has two cars and an SUV too.

12:15 p.m. May 6, 2014

=======

And let's not leave out the Billion people in India...

Face it -- WE have a problem,
and America's Conservative have NO solution, and are perpetuating the problem.

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihuahua, 00

I don't think wanting everybody to go back to riding bicycles and horses is a very progressive idea.

I remember 5 years ago that the Idea of a carbon tax was a conspiracy theory and now those same people that made fun of this are the same ones that are advocating this.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Pops "...it isn't 97% vs 3%, by the way...."

You are correct. If I were a climate scientist and had been included in that study, they would have lumped me in with the 97%, in spite of my skepticism. Here's why: I believe that the temperature trend is upward (but not over the last decade!); and I believe that that some negligible component of that warming is contributed by man. For those two beliefs, I would have been counted in agreement, although I don't really agree with them.

I believe that the earth is following a natural, cyclical pattern of warming and cooling, that we are now warming as we climb out of the Little Ice Age, and that we are still below the median temperature of the last few thousand years. I believe that man's activities contribute a minuscule amount to that warming. I believe that warming is no cause for alarm, and may in fact be beneficial.

Many climate scientists make the same distinctions, yet people throw around that 97% figure as if it means that every climate scientist believes -- like them -- in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. It just isn't so.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

re: Unreconstructed Reb,

There are a lot of reasons to debate a point, but it is fruitless to debate with someone who makes his own rules. When you are prepared to debate, using points that you have discovered to disprove the comments that I and others have made, then we'll debate. Until then, we can safely assume that you have no points.

Global warming is not something that God does not understand. Do you think, even for an instant, that He created an earth that his children could destroy by using the fuels that He put beneath the surface of the earth for our use? I find that type of opinion to be more than arrogant. God knows the beginning from the end. He certainly knows whether using resources that he provided to us for our well-being would destroy the earth that He created. Of course those who believe that they are the creators and not the creation would reject that statement; after all, they have all knowledge, or so they suppose.

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA

@J Thompson,

"There are a lot of reasons to debate a point, but it is fruitless to debate with someone who makes his own rules."

I don't see where anyone's done that. You're the one putting words in someone's mouth and then refusing to address his points about the value of the so-called evidence presented by ignoring his entire argument.

"Global warming is not something that God does not understand."

You started your comments with a lecture about the scientific method, but now you're falling back on a theological argument (furthering my belief that you're an alter ego of Mike Richard's). If you want to invoke God, I think there's ample evidence that He's willing to let us muck up our environment if we don't provide the stewardship He's commanded of us. And who's to say that poisoning our own planet isn't another sign of the times?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I'm curious why Mike Richards is believeing NASA now,
but,
disavows everything they say about the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, Black Holes, and Gravity?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

@J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Do you think, even for an instant, that He created an earth that his children could destroy by using the fuels that He put beneath the surface of the earth for our use?

He certainly knows whether using resources that he provided to us for our well-being would destroy the earth that He created. Of course those who believe that they are the creators and not the creation would reject that statement; after all, they have all knowledge, or so they suppose.

5:23 p.m. May 6, 2014

=======

Um yes, in fact I do.

I believe we are his children,
and like children has given us a huge bag of jelly beans,
has told us there is enough and to spare,
BUT we must be good stewards, and us it Wisely & Sparingly.

An Eternal concept --
God will not use magic pixie dust to swoop down and save us from our own stupid, selfish selves.

FYI - He put Uranium 235 on the Earth too, we can choose to use it for power or to blow up ourselves up with it as well.

Same thing goes with fuels...

jsf
Centerville, UT

jfreed27

If you believe the federal government is going to return carbon taxes to the people that just paid it in higher costs for food clothing utilities and more you live in a dream world.

jsf
Centerville, UT

LDS Tree-Hugger, Open Minded Mormon, LDS Liberal, Airnaut, but not yet Samuel the Liberalite, If we go on the concept of helping out the world population, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing.

Plant growth increases with increased CO2, that is why greenhouses have CO2 generators. Plant growth increases with increased temperature, that is why greenhouses have heaters to elevate temperatures.
Current studies have shown, the earth has greened up by at least 11% with the increased temperatures and CO2.
With an increase in CO2, plants require less water to grow, thus providing more water for populations to live by. The WH climate report recognizes this in stating the CO2 increase is resulting in larger amounts of pollen. But they tell us this is bad.

Why is this bad if the earth is making more plant growth which can be used to feed the starving nations? Or do you simply need a sterile earth to prove you have taken care of it?

jsf
Centerville, UT

America's Conservative have NO solution, and are perpetuating the problem. And the liberals are 100 percent off grid using no mining, electricity, cooking fires, solar panels, bio-diesel, living as the ancient hunters gathers did minus the fires.

to comment

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