Quantcast

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

"...the comprehensive National Climate Assessment released Tuesday predicts a hot, dry future for Utah marked by more wildfires, drought, greater air pollution and scarcity of water due to climate change." Quoted today from this paper.

Anybody besides me going to read it? I will, how about you?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "What if this large majority is right?"

There's a good question. But, remember, there's a critical corollary -- "What if they're wrong?"

Both questions need an answer. It's as fatal [or perhaps, moreso] to ignore the second, as to ignore the first. And, each question deserves the same analysis and attention.

Economic experts agree that implementation of most liberal AGW "solutions" will be ruinously expensive to real people. Highly profitable for Al Gore and other liberal crony capitalists, to be sure, but ruinous to most of us. Constitutional freedoms experts agree that these "solutions" will also destroy American freedoms.

If the bleating majority of climate "scientists" is correct, there will, of course be consequences. But, if they're wrong, and we find out, after bankrupting the world economy, that the primary effect is not climatic, but establishment of a new environmental oligarchy, what then?

The vast, vast majority of real people, disingenuously labeled "deniers" by Goebbels-like climate "science" propagandists, really just want answers to both questions.

And then, we want to make up our minds, based on the best available information. Not coercive climate "science" propaganda.

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

Oh let me put away my violin and get a Kleenex to wipe my tears. Typical leftist ploy. Lets try comparing apples to apples, not oranges. Pretty sure there is a little more known science about heart conditions, then guessing about the atmosphere, and all the shadowy causes of climate and weather! Now that I know my kid will probably live, lets move on.
If the climate does change, just like it has been for millions of years, likely few of us are going to die. Actually all of us are going to die, but not necessarily from climate change. We can adapt. If the climate is going to change, it is going to have very little to do with what you and I do. Don't be so arrogant! If all you do-gooder leftists were really serious about man made climate change, there are about 25 other countries you need to be imposing your ideas and opinions on, before you come back to the US and start preaching to us.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

What if the 97% (are all of these 97% climatologists) are not right? It's been proven by scientists that the computer models that they use are flawed and skewed toward the side of human caused climate change.

Mt. St Helens blows again, it will put more bad stuff into the atmosphere in a few minutes than any human intervention ever thought of doing over the entire course of human history. What about an asteroid of large size hitting the earth? How about some major solar activity? Are we going into an ice age now? That seems to be the consensus of scientists.

Have you ever stopped to consider that the climate change debate, on both sids, is agenda driven? Don't tell me that Algore is pure on this subject. He's made millions off of the scare tactics. He's found a way to cash in. For him it's apparently about the money.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

1. The greeks talked about the Earth being a sphere in 600 B.C.

2. No Scientist in Mideval Europe believed in a Flat-Earth -- that dogma was pertetuated by the ignorant, uneducated, and the religous.

3. Christopher Columbus was a Government sponsored program.

It's funny to listen to "some" of these 3% Global Warming Deniers,
using "Science" to back up their claims...

While at the same time, they argue that the Earth is 6,000 years old,

Was entirely under 37,000 feet of water less than 4,000 years ago,

That even a slight evolutionary process by any of the animals on the Noah's ark could not possibly happened,

That fossil fuels are not even fossil based, but are somehow being cooked deep within the earth faster than we can possibly pump and burn them,

and

That the only reason we don't believe them [the deniers] and believe these "Scientists" is because we've all been snookered by some secret Government cabal cover-up, making things to make Al Gore rich.

These are the same people who believe;
Obama's birth certificate was faked,
Osama Bin Laden death was faked,
9/11 was faked,
the Apollo missions were faked,
so of course Global Warming is fake too!

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Getting down to the gritty of the nitty, conservatives are far more interested in their wallets than they are in "conserving" our air, water, or land. I suggest that right-wingers drop the label "conservative" in deference to the truth-in-labeling laws.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

You don't mind spending billions for hedgefund managers and other executives cheat you and ruin our economy but if it comes to protecting your children and grandchildren then "kill" the messenger. By the way, the last decade was the warmest on recorded history for you that tout your facts.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

The consensus noted by the author is wrong but not for the reasons noted by the conservative commentators. Of the last 9,136 peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals on this subject, only one has called into question anthropogenic climate change. The consensus is more along the lines of 99.99% among the scientific community with 98% confidence, it is undisputed by every single nation and inter-governmental organization, as well as nearly every single non-profit and for-profit organization outside the US. Indeed, the only global exception are American conservatives and the American non-profit dirty energy front groups. The general debate is over, it is time to move toward finding solutions and leave conservative America behind as they toil away in whatever faux conspiracy theory they can come up with next.

Mr. Richards - The comparison you've given is apt although the stages are mixed. You see, the current stage we are at is comparable to a post-columbian stage of the spherical earth debate. Everyone has now seen the evidence, undeniable determinations within the scientific community have been made, but yet there still exist a few of you flat-earthers.

silo
Sandy, UT

@Flashback
"Mt. St Helens blows again, it will put more bad stuff into the atmosphere in a few minutes than any human intervention ever thought of doing over the entire course of human history."

Not true. Not even close. Do global warming deniers even bother to cross check the claims that they post? Why is there such an aversion to facts? 30 seconds with google yields the following...

"Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year."

There's literally no other way to spin the data. Volcanoes contribute a fraction of of the CO2 that man does, yet every discussion on global warming sees at least one denier claiming the exact opposite.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@ugottbkidn

Recorded history is very short when compared with the lifetime of the earth. The proxy record indicates that temperatures have been much higher over the last three thousand years. In fact, we are below the median temperature in that timeframe. We just went through the Little Ice Age and are still climbing back out of it.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

LDS Liberal

A nice series of non-sequitors. You forgot to mention the Kennedy assisination. And by the way, of that list, the only one that would make sense and be easiest to accomplish is the faked birth certificate. All the others would require a massive conspiracy and coverup by hundreds of people. Faking a document like a birth certificate is done every day.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Years ago, I owned and operated a photo lab that only processed film and made prints for professional photographers. I had a Kodak VCNA (Video Color Negative Analyser) that, at the time, cost twice as much as the average home in Utah. That "closed circuit TV" allowed me to "analyse" each negative before it was printed and adjust the settings so the resulting print was "perfect". It didn't work quite as expected. No matter how carefully I calibrated things, some prints weren't acceptable, requiring an expensive "re-do". That's when I learned of "the circle of confusion". The Kodak representative showed me how each part of the process could add error. The temperature of the paper, the time between the exposure and the processing of the paper, the temperature of the chemicals, the quickness or slowness of the solenoids that operated the shutter and the color filters all had variables.

What does that have to do with "climate change"? Unless every "contributing factor" works exactly as the scientists hope, the "error rate" will beyond expectations.

I don't believe that the scientists can predict climate change based on their data set.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

The problem still remains. The models are not right, and the science is not settled.

The NOAA stated in their 2008 report that 15 years or more of no warming would mean that the models are wrong. We are now going on 16 or 17 years with no significant warming. IF that isn't enough, the RSS and UAH satelite data indicates that we have been remaining constant or else cooling.

Now, if that isn't enough for you, if the science is settled then why do climatologists keep finding out new significant information that proves their models wrong?

In the past 7 years scientists have found that the earth sheds more heat than they thought, they found that there are more natural aerosols than previously thought, can't figure out where all the CO2 goes, and found that when solar activity decreases the earth cools. At the same time we have found that glaciers are growing and the ice sheet is getting thicker.

For a settled science there sure are a lot of new discoveries going on that put big holes into previous theories.

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA

@Nate,

"True. This is why the claim that this is "settled science" is so ridiculous. Nothing left to discover here? Really?"

I don't think that the letter's author claimed anything about "settled science" but addressed the overwhelming weight of scientific consensus. There's a subtle yet distinct difference between the two.

"Then why are the climate models consistently wrong?"

Pointing to single data points which suit a minority view is the same as pointing to a single brick on the side of building and declaring it to be the whole structure.

The scientific consensus will change only when its explanations no longer hold water for observed evidence. Single data points are insufficient to do that.

Personally, I've long been agnostic on climate change, not having the background to dig down into the details. But the views of an overwhelming number of scientists around the world has to give me pause. If not for its inherent political, economic, and social ramifications, there'd be as little opposition to the theory of climate change as there is to the correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

nonceleb
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Mile Richards 97% of scientists in the last millennia believed the earth orbited the sun and the world was flat? The scientific revolution was not until the 16th Century. The term "scientist" and the scientific method were not even used in Medieval times. And "scholars" then knew of the sun-centered solar system but did not write or lecture about it for fear of being excommunicated and punished for heresy. Thus the general population did not know that either. Even the ancient Greek scholars knew the earth was round. Eratosthenes even measured its circumference in the 4th century BCE.
And yes volcanic activity which blocks solar radiation has a cooling effect. What are you suggesting, that man should add to particulates in the atmosphere to counter the warming trend? Should we just hope for more eruptions to cool the planet? As for scientists getting government monies for research, how about the deniers who get funding from energy companies and conservative political groups. Are we to trust their research and conclusions as being objective? Who has more vested interest in the climate change debate, our democratic government or investors, bankers and energy companies?

chilly
Salt Lake City, UT

Stalwart Sentinel,

The study you reference of "9,136 articles" (in reality 9,136 authors of 2,258 articles) is as flawed as the one I referenced, Doran/Zimmerman, in an earlier post. It's a bit like sampling the library for books on UFOs or Bigfoot and being stunned to find that the vast majority of the writers claim to believe in the subject.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Look what's happened in just over a century. Einstein changed our understanding of time and space with his papers on relativity. The understanding of matter is changing. We've learned that the atom, instead of being the smallest "thing" possible, is made up of other parts. We've learned (long after I was in school) that the neutron, proton and electron are not the smallest parts of an atom, but that quarks exist and that even quarks come in various "flavors". As we learn more and more of what really is, our understanding of how things work also increases. The jet stream is moving around, causing unpredictable weather. Those who believe in global warming tell us that burning carbon is causing the jet stream to move. Those who don't believe in global warming give their own reasons. In other words, it is a war of words.

Does anyone remember what Barack Obama's "claim to fame" was before he became President? He was a community organizer. He used people, behind the scenes, to influence front line activities. He's a master of doing that. His people are pushing global warming because money is involved.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

Redshirt - If you consider NOAA to be the preeminent authority on this subject, you should read their statement yesterday regarding Obama's Climate Action Plan. NOAA called it, "the most comprehensive and authoritative scientific report ever generated about climate changes that are happening now in the U.S." because it, "is the result of a three-year analytical effort by a team of over 300 climate scientists and experts." Guess what that study found? Anthropogenic climate change.

Further, if you take the last couple of decades (hottest on record) and compare them to one another, you see little variance - but when compared to the rest of the century, there is no denying the warming trend. This is simple stuff, you should be able to figure it out on your own. Your example is like taking the average height of an NBA team and saying that is representational of society as a whole.

Finally, nearly all the "new discoveries" you mention are consistently plugged into the data sets/models and result in more negative affects than previously thought. The science is settled, only the details remain.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Re: Mike Richards "Now "scientists" are being paid by governments to prove that we are causing a greenhouse effect. "

In other words, according to Mike, scientists who find that global warming is occurring because of the greenhouse effect are doing so for profit, that is, they have no scientific objectivity whatsoever, that indeed, they are not scientists at all.

Not true at all of course. It is remarkable that we have sunk to this depth. But then we had the witch hunts of the 1950's as a model. This is Birchism focused on climate change. It should come as no surprise.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

Mike Richards - The takeaway from your "Kodak VCNA" example is that when you are not an expert on a subject you should consult an expert for assistance. Well, I hate to break the news but 99.99% of experts on climate science are telling us the same thing. Hint: the experts disagree with you completely.

chilly - First, you do realize that whether the statistic is 1 article of 9, 136 or 1 author of 2,258, the result is still 99.99% consensus, right? Second, you don't seem to understand the term "peer-reviewed". Indeed, the fact that you compare an undeniable consensus of peer-reviewed articles from every single major scientific journal across the planet to an isolated poll or a UFO library tells me all I need to know about the level of analysis you've applied to the subject matter. Scientific peer-reviewed journals are not bigfoot books; the comparison is ludicrous and juvenile.

to comment

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