Comments about ‘Letter: Expert opinions’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, May 7 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

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

It will be claimed here at least several times that CO2 cannot be a greenhouse gas because it is relatively heavy, and cannot therefore rise high enough in the atmosphere to be a factor in global warming

But that is not how greenhouse gases work. Greenhouse gases act as they do because they
are blankets, holding in and absorbing the earth's long wave energy emissions, like a
blanket on a cold night. So CO2's weight holding it close to the earth helps it be a greenhouse gas.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

What if 100% of the scientists agreed that the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth? We all know that for millennia more than 97% of all scientists told us that the earth was flat. We know that "scientists" who told us that the earth revolved around the sun were punished severely. "Scientists" came to those conclusions by examining the data available to them. Their data was wrong. Now "scientists" are being paid by governments to prove that we are causing a greenhouse effect. They fail to note that when Mt. Saint Helen erupted, spewing untold tons of debris into the atmosphere, that the earth cooled. It didn't get hotter. NASA scientist learned in 2013, the denser the atmosphere, the more solar radiation that is bounced back into space. The net effect is cooling, not heating, yet scientists keep spending millions of dollars of taxpayer furnished grant money telling us that unless we are taxed for using fossil fuels, that we are going to fry the earth. The fire that burns the earth will not be man-made nor will it be caused by burning fossil fuels.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Dave,

The whole climate change issue is no longer a scientific issue in America.

It is now a political issue. And being so, we are required to side along party lines and take logic and common sense out of the equation. I mean, did you see that 3% number?

In the same light, I now understand how unlimited political contributions and lobby money is actually good for the system and in no way affects the legislation produced in Congress.

Some things are counter intuitive. That is why we need partisan politicians to explain them.

Ranch
Here, UT

It's a bit ironic that the conservative mantra is that we're leaving too much debt for the children, but they seem to have no problem leaving a decimated, overheated planet to those same children.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

I suppose that would depend if the 97% Doctors were Democrat or Republican,
since that is how the GW deniers are basing their decisions as to what to do...

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"What if 100% of the scientists agreed that the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth? "

Were these "scientists" really scientists in the modern sense. What changed other than the information itself? Methods and scientific equipment.

So this what if straw man is absolutely nonsensical.

And PS Mike you demonstrate one of the reasons many of us don't take the ancients view of the world seriously including where we came from and where we're going.

Sensible Scientist
Rexburg, ID

What climate change? Global temperatures have been flat for 16 years after rising slightly for about 17. Before that, temperatures fell slightly for 40 years. And all the while, CO2 levels rose. In records of distant past temperatures, CO2 levels rose centuries after temperatures rose, not before. As a scientist, I believe that means CO2 is not the primary temperature driver, which is what skeptics have been saying all along.

Science is not a democracy. When the majority admits their climate models have been wrong and have too much uncertainty to base trillion-dollar decisions on, then I'll listen because that's what the objective facts say.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

The Earth is warming. In what way exactly? Over the last few years the whole Earth has actually cooled a smidgen if you take overall temperatures from certain areas. I'll bet most on the East Coast this last winter were wanting a little warming. Does this warming only apply to certain areas? And, if is does warm a little, is that necessairly bad for every place on Earth? Some places would be helped with a little warming. Most of the warming predicted is based on computer models and such. GIGO. And the idea that people are causing the warming because of industrial activity pretty much ignores all the natural souces of CO2 that come from the Earth. Earth seems to be pretty resilient to any Human abuses and makes corrections when necessary. So we create a little more CO2. Earth will likely create a little less to balance things out. That's my "computer" model.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Mike Richards said: "What if 100% of the scientists agreed that the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth? We all know that for millennia more than 97% of all scientists told us that the earth was flat."

You start off with a false statement, "European Scientist" under the heavy hand of a religion that didn't allow free thought may have got inline, but scientist the world round knew and espoused the truth.

Think of your political party and big business as "Dark Ages Religion Rulers" and the rest of the scientific community as those not under the rule of their power (or paycheck)

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.

MacKayJones
PROVO, UT

The global warming alarmists aren’t attempting to shut down debate because they’re worried the dissenters are wrong; the alarmists are attempting to shut down debate because they know their models are wrong, and they’d rather nobody focus on that inconvenient little fact.--Sean Davis

chilly
Salt Lake City, UT

Mr. Folland, If your belief in catastrophic climate change is based on the "97%" survey you should investigate the details of the study. The number comes from Doran/Zimmerman 2009. Over 10,000 scientists were surveyed, 3,146 responded. This number was whittled down by the study team to 79. 77 of these answered "yes" to a rather vague question:

"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Voila! 97%

Nothing in the study mentioned extreme weather, drought, fires and all of the other wild claims now coming from some of our leaders, activist scientists and their faithful media.

No One Of Consequence
West Jordan, UT

This is not so much about climate science as about political science, the only kind of science that is ever "settled".

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Oh and another thing --

We never had a 100% consensus or conclusive evidence by independant Global Weapons Inspectors and "Scientists" verifying Weapons of Mass Destruction existed before committing 12 years and $3 Trllion to start "doing something" like starting offensive wars by attacking and invading Iraq!

ingslc
salt lake city, UT

We make decisions based on the best information available in the moment, not with perfect hindsight, and we assess risks and benefits based on the best available information. Mr. Folland's analogy is absolutely right…..when 97% of doctors tell you to choose a certain treatment, you would be quite a bold gambler to ignore them. If we look at the information we have gathered on climate science and pollution, and we compare that to alternatives, then clearly the better risk is to start switching to less-polluting technologies as soon as possible. So much data indicates that our present course is a disaster, but what harms are caused by less pollution?

Remember, there are still no medical studies which have PROVEN with a double-blind placebo study that smoking CAUSES cancer. Tobacco companies have built their entire industries around this fact. I know a handful of people who have smoked their whole lives and don't have cancer, so does that mean we should deregulate tobacco? Let people smoke anywhere they want? On planes? In restaurants? Let stores sell cigarettes to kids and companies market tobacco to our children?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

And you want to get all "religous",

I believe God makes natural laws, and everything - including himself - obeys them.

He only told us calamities "would" happen in the last days,
He never said anything about him being like a Cosmic puppet master in the sky making it all happen.

I think - like everything else in life - we bring things upon ourselves.
The good and the bad.

Do as we are commanded -- be good stewards of the Earth, tend and take care of it,
Waste not, want not...

Like manna from heaven, only taking what we need - and as little as possible...
We will be OK, he will bless us.

Exploit it,
Fight Wars over it,
waste and manipulate it for $Profit [i.e., for Gain $$ - Master Mahan]
It will be our own curse.

Amen.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Several of you have made my point. "Scientists" were told what was expected of them by their sponsor, which, in some cases, was a church. They "found" proof of whatever it was that they were expected to find. SOME scientists outside the influence of that church or sponsor, came to other conclusions, but for millennia, the "official" stance that is found in our European History books, was that the world was either flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. Those "scientists" were not allowed to promote the findings of scientists from other parts of the world. It was "settled" science. You either "believed" or you lost your sponsorship.

How is that different than what is happening today? As stated, Out of 10,000 scientists polled, 77 scientists "agreed" and 2 scientists disagreed with the "expected answer". It looks like 9,923 scientists "agreed" that there was no merit to the question that was asked.

Ask your politician why he believes that the earth will fry based on that 0.77% response.

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA

I should think that the scientific method has improved in the 5 centuries since anyone took the flat earth view (which contradicted empirical observations of ancient Greeks and Egyptians) or the geocentric solar system seriously.

Pointing out these blunders, which owe far more to dogmatic religion and philosophy than to science, is in no way a refutation of current scientific theories. That comes about through continued science studies.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@David Folland

Check your facts. That 97% number is completely bogus. Bad assumptions produce erroneous conclusions.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Is this an "either/or" situation, or is it a political situation where billions of dollars in untapped "taxes" are at stake? Truth is truth. When sufficient data has been collected and the proper means to use that data have been developed, then, reasonable people can collectively discuss their findings.

Foolish people jump on the "popular" bandwagon just because it serves their personal desires. Some people who can walk to work would ban cars, thinking that they are unnecessary. Some people who live in a well insulated cave would ban using fossil fuels to heat a normal house. Some people who live in a world of their own, would tell us that 77 "scientists" out of 10,000 who answered a question the way that they wanted that question to be answered, declared that their pet theory is correct. They neglect the opinions of the 99.3% of those polled who thought the question was not worth answering.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Res Novae "Pointing out these blunders..is in no way a refutation of current scientific theories. That comes about through continued science studies."

True. This is why the claim that this is "settled science" is so ridiculous. Nothing left to discover here? Really? Then why are the climate models consistently wrong?

to comment

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