Comments about ‘Letter: Expert opinions’

Return to article »

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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

Kearns, UT
What if the 97% (are all of these 97% climatologists) are not right?


Ya what IF they are wrong? Then what?

We end up with cleaner air and water? boo-hoo.
We leave more energy in the gorund for future generations? boo-hoo.
We eliminate our dependancy and no longer fund Terrorists? boo-hoo.
We no longer need make up lies to attack and invade soveign nations for their oil? boo-hoo.

You know,
years ago at a University symposium - a speaker suggested that the "Wine of Babylon" (i.e., Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia) refered to in Revelations - that made Kings Rich and Nations drunk and addicted to was "OIL".

I've never forgotten that because it rang so true to me --
and here we are 35 years and 2 wars later...it never seemed truer.

Salt Lake City, UT

Stalwart Sentinel,

In climate science, "peer review" has become "pal review". Did you know that all of the climate modeling, that has been done to date, was peer reviewed? Surely you are aware of the resounding failure of these models. So much for "peer review".

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Stalwart Sentinel" you realize that Obama does not have a scientific background, so as far as he is concerned it could have been written by Dr. Dre.

The question now is which NOAA are you going to believe?

If you take the last 1000 years of information, we find that the earth is still too cold, and that we should let the earth warm up some more. The longer time period that you look at, the higher the average global temperature you find. So, why do you want to keep the earth in an ice age?

Read the article "The New York Times' Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 Years Of Flat Global Temperatures" in Forbes. They explain that despite the Chicken Little cries of people like you, the Earth's temperature is not acting like you claim.

If something is settled, that means that the details are done and there is nothing more to add.

Sandy, UT

"Surely you are aware of the resounding failure of these models."

Please, do tell us of these 'resounding failures' and how their existence refutes the trend of the data showing that humans are contributing to global warming. Nevermind that the models aren't even intended to assess 'Whether' its happening, rather 'To What Degree' is it happening and can we slow/stop the trend.

Since you and others seem to miss this point. The only flaws found in computer models occurred through peer review. Not from pretentious posts on message boards. Not from AM radio hosts. Not from forwarded emails. And how is it that these scientists deserve your praise when their peer-review process finds things you agree with, but earns your scorn when the data shows otherwise?

That's the beauty of science, it acknowledges a trend, but keeps asking questions, even when the answers are unexpected. Sadly, for those who are anti-science, the opposite is true. They reject the trend, focus on any unexpected result and proclaim that science is wrong because of that unexpected result.

Salt Lake City, UT

For my two cents, I am skeptical of the computer "models" so many people rely on for their opinions. The models are man made, and while I do not imply overt dishonesty in the various models that are created, it appears to me that they are not always accurate or 100% on target.

Perhaps the earth is warming, is it due to CO2? Sun activity? The vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Who is certain of the cause, and who is certain of the end result? No one knows, because we rely upon computer models that are man made.

A warmer earth would require us to adjust, overcome and adapt. To me the problem is that we want to remain static - business and life as usual- in a dynamic environment that we really can't control. The inability to control hurts our pride and ego and we try harder to control what we are unable to fully comprehend let alone influence.


There's still no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. That means everything that is "projected" is just a guess - there's no data to back it up. That means all the evidence offered to "prove" their case is anecdotal. That isn't science.

A problem the letter-writer needs to address is whether 97% of people who have a clue about climate science agree with the premise of AGW, or whether it's a made-up number. If it's the latter - and it is - the real message is "those people can't be trusted."

Our grandchildren will study the AGW silliness as a case study in how the scientific process can be gamed. That is, they will if we aren't bankrupted by the alarmists.

If we all were a bit more scientifically literate, we wouldn't fall for this kind of stuff.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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


As I recall, it was the smoking causes lung cancer deniers of the 1950's that were being bribed and paid to go against all Scientific evidence.

So which is it today?
The once again majority of Scientific evidence,
or the Oil Industry bribing and paying off to once again "deny" there is a problem?

I think your conspiracy theory is about 180 backwards...

Pleasant Grove, UT

@Res Novae "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."

It's a distinction without a difference. The purpose of either claim is to shut down dissent. When we ask what it is that makes the science settled, the answer is always the same: consensus. So it really does amount to the same appeal to authority. (Take note: the case for catastrophic warming rests upon a logical fallacy.)

"The scientific consensus will change only when its explanations no longer hold water for observed evidence."

The case has crumbled already. Clinging to some bogus 97% figure from years past is less and less possible, as the observed flat temperatures diverge more and more from the fraudulent path of the hockey stick graph.

"Single data points are insufficient to do that."

We're talking about many thousands of data points taken from all over the world, by both terrestrial and satellite stations, revealing flat (or slightly declining) global temperatures. The "consensus" is contradicted by reality.

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "LDS Liberal" you bring up an interesting point in history.

Did you know that prior to the 1950's that the government, Medical Doctors, and all sorts of people and groups were telling us about the benefits of smoking.

The government even funded studies telling us about the benefits of smoking. Government funded scientists were more than happy to say that smoking didn't cause any problems. It wasn't until people started to see for themselves that smoking was bad did government begin to agree that smoking was bad.

In the early 1900's the government was promoting Eugenics in the US. That was again another lie that was harmful. The government is still practicing eugenics within US prisons. Don't you think you should have more distrust of the government that constantly uses science to lie to the US population?

If the government was willing to lie to us about smoking prior to the 1950's. How do you know that the government isn't doing the same again with climate change? The government has a history of using scientists to tell us that something is beneficial when in reality it isn't.

San Jose, CA

chilly - So, if we distill our positions down: I have thousands upon thousands of scientific peer-reviewed articles that support me and you have a baseless, spurious personal accusation that the entire global scientific community lacks integrity. I wonder which is more credible?

Redshirt - I do realize Obama is not a scientist, hence the reason I included the point that the report was comprised over three years by more than 300 experts (Hint: Obama didn't write it on a whim during his spare time). Had you spent even a minute doing research, you would have realized that on your own. Further, I believe both "NOAAs" - there is an explanation for your misrepresented discrepancy, you just have to do your own due diligence to figure it out - I"m tired of holding your hand on this. Finally, please spare us Op/Eds - I'm sorry but an opinion article in Forbes does not rebut thousands of actual climate scientists and their peer-reviewed articles, scientific models, etc.... There is no comparison, your position is ludicrous outside American conservative safe havens - just deal with it.

Pasedena, CA

To "StalwartSentinel" if you believe both NOAA's, then what do you do. They say that the models are wrong, but the plan to stop the warming is good. How can they tell that it is a good plan since they don't have an accurate model to tell them what will happen if we decrease CO2 output?

To quote the NOAA's 2008 report "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." We are now pushing 17 years with no warming.

So, how do we know the effect of lowering our CO2 emissions if the model is wrong? Think of it this way. Would you fly in an airplane where they thought the aluminum was stronger than it realy is?

You can't have it both ways. If the model is garbage, then Obama's report is garbage. If the model is right, then the NOAA was wrong in 2008.

So again, which NOAA do you believe?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

RedShirt --

As much as I am wholehearted opposed to it --
It does me good tho know that you voted for a guy who used the NSA,
and created the Dept. of HomeLand Security and the "Patriot Act" to spy on all you Government haters -- and you did it not only once, but twice.

San Jose, CA

Redshirt - NOAA does not say the models are all wrong, etc... let's show some integrity here. Further, I believe you misunderstood NOAA's stance in 2008. You also appear to use the word "model" in various instances/contexts and are under the apparent misguided understanding that there is only one. In fact, there is not just one "model". Again, the science of anthropogenic climate change is settled, only the details remain.

I would suggest you re-read the entire 2008 report and subsequent reports by NOAA, among many other government, NGO, and scientific reports in order to make sense of your fictional discrepancy. To ensure balance and scientific representational accuracy, for any article you read that denies anthropogenic climate change, you must read at least 9,999 that support it. Unfortunate for conservatives, that's the real world you live in but deny.

Again, you'll have to figure this one out on your own - consider this your initiation to heightened thought. One hint though, you will not find truth nor answers in op/eds, so I suggest you skip over those from hereon out.

Pasedena, CA

To "LDS Liberal" your answer is confusing. I asked why you trust a government with a history of propping up scientists to use for its own agenda.

I don't trust the government, I don't trust the politicians that I like. That is a good thing because I will look to keep them honest.

You on the other hand, still cannot get over Bush. However, it is nice to know that you voted for the guy who is using the NSA to spy on the US and its allies, uses the IRS to target political opponents and their supporters, is granting more power to the Department of Homeland Security, and has made the worst parts of the Patriot Act permanent. In addition to that, the guy you voted for promised to be the most transparent yet has turned out to be the most secretive President in recent history. He has gone from one crisis to another and has yet to get one right. And you voted for him twice, and would vote for him again if he could run again.

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA


"When we ask what it is that makes the science settled, the answer is always the same: consensus. So it really does amount to the same appeal to authority."

It's not appeal to authority to offer scientific evidence. And the weight of that evidence constitutes consensus. On what basis to you decide to accept or reject "consensus"? What's the difference between "correct" and "incorrect" consensus, and how should we know?

Do you accept or reject the consensus that the Big Bang is the best explanation for the formation of the universe? Or that evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on this planet? Or that smoking causes cancer? Or the consensus behind plate tectonics, quantum theory, general/special relativity, aerodynamics, orbital mechanics, etc, etc? On what grounds do we accept or reject these?

The glaring issue facing American conservative opposition to climate change theory is that it is the only major source of opposition in the developed world. That points to ideology, not science, and there are many ideological reasons for them to dismiss it. It does not help that they oppose science on many other fronts where it conflicts with their views.

Pasedena, CA

To "StalwartSentinel" the NOAA is quite clear. If they see 15 years or more with no warming that would indicate a discrepancy. They were 95% certain that could never happen. We are now going on 17 years with no warming. There is a discrepancy. A discrepancy means that the model got it wrong.

If the science is settled, then why do they keep finding that their model is wrong? They have found that the earth releases more heat than previously thought. NASA can't figure out where all of the CO2 goes. They have found out that the sun plays a bigger role than previously thought. The have even found that they had cloud cover figured wrong.

For a settled science, they sure keep finding problems with what they said just a few years ago. Plus if it is so settled, why is it that nearly all of their predicitons have been wrong. The only thing that is settled is that they don't know nearly as much as they think they do.

Alter Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Res Novae "It's not appeal to authority to offer scientific evidence."

Correct. So, offer the evidence. Don't tell me how many people you think there are who agree with you. See the difference?

"And the weight of that evidence constitutes consensus."

No, the weight of the evidence is its ability to explain observed phenomena. Climate alarmism fails to do this. You try to paint conservatism as being anti-science, and I'm asking you to adhere to the scientific method. If the theory doesn't match the experiment, it must be rejected.

What we have learned from the experiment is that the alarmist climate models placed too much weight on feedback loops. As a result, the predicted warming is not occurring. The models must be revised.

The problem with these models is that they don't model the earth -- they model the researcher's assumptions about the earth. And our observations show us that those assumptions are, in many cases, just plain wrong.


The perception that "most climate scientists agree" is vastly overblown. The number of climate researchers who actually engage in research on the causes of climate is quite small. What has happened is that those researchers who study the effects of warming - not the cause - are counted as "true believers" and thus are the statistics inflated.

That any "scientist" would refuse to debate their peers, would refuse to release their data or R code, would hide data that reverses a paper's conclusion in a folder named "censored_data", would refuse to honor FOIA requests, would use "tricks" to "hide the decline", would think exaggeration or outright lying is justified to achieve an end, would resort to personal attacks on their peers, would misrepresent the data, would violate the law in order to obtain the names of people who support an opposing view for the purpose of attacking them, is not only embarrassing, but is also a pretty good indicator that what they are doing is not science. Truth does not require such underhanded tactics, it is capable of standing on its own two feet.

San Jose, CA

Redshirt - You honestly need to read the entire 2008 report and those since, the explanation is very simply. I know you haven't because the exact phrase you quote is all over conservative, non-scientific blogs, etc... because they, like you, do not read entire articles, preferring to focus on a mute talking point. If you would put as much effort into understanding as you put into sticking your head in the sand, you'd answer your own question rather quickly.

So, are you going to be self-reliant or continue to rely on me to do all the work for you? Please, answer that question.

I will repeat: the science is settled, only the details remain. Science, unlike conservative mantra, is actually self-correcting so they have and will continue to fine tune their findings but it is undeniable from a scientific standpoint. This is why American conservatives should have no place at the table, your ilk have forfeited rational thought and chosen a path of a political agenda instead. 'm sorry, you chose the incorrect position, stop looking to me to bail you out.



How can the science be settled when there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2? I don't mean the squinty-eyed look at graphs or the computer models. I mean mathematical correlation at the 95% confidence level using data from the real world. Without correlation, it's all a house of cards.

to comment

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