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
RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "StalwartSentinel" attacking me or the quote doesn't change its validity. The fact is still there. We have not had any warming for 17 years, proving that the models used for long term temperature predictions are not accurate.

If we don't have accurate models, how can we base public policy on models that do not give us good data.

If science is self-correcting, that would mean that the science of climate change is not settled. If it was settled, then why would there be a need to correct it?

The lack of logic in your arguement only shows that you don't understand much about science and computer modeling.

StalwartSentinel
San Jose, CA

Redshirt - No one is being attacked, you simply refuse to do even the most basic-level research to answer your own question. Here's the slightest hint: what are the standards for measuring any given 15-year interval and are you applying those correctly? Further, you continue to use the word "model" as though there is a single, omnipresent "model" that exists. Please, quantify how many models you are specifically referring to and tell me how many additional models exist in addition to the ones you reference.

The science for anthropogenic climate change is settled; however, adjustments have been and will consistently be made. We will never be able to give every single plausible public policy proscription, yet we know enough to move forward with certain ones.

Please, continue to lecture me on how I don't understand science and computer modeling when you claim to rebut literally thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed science articles and models simply because you google-searched conservative talking-points to find half a phrase in a single statement from NOAA in 2008, misunderstood what it said, and then proceeded to perpetuate the incomprehension on comment boards. This is a conversation of rapidly diminishing returns.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "StalwartSentinel" do you not realize that for something to be settled that means that it is not needing to be changed. The fact that it keeps changing and they keep finding new information shows that it is not settled.

You do realize that just because something is peer reviewed does not make it true. For example, peer reviewed articles in the 1930's and 1940's told us that cigaretts were safe.

Scientific papers in from the late 1800's and early 1900's told us that eugenics would improve the world.

Government sponsored scientists have told us what proper nutrition should be, yet since they started to tell us what to eat the obesity rate has gone up. Their peer reviewd papers say that obesity rates should drop.

Scientists still can't make up their mind if eggs are good or bad. Each time they present their evidence in peer reviewed journals.

So, just saying it was peer reviewed does not really mean much, especially if those peers believe the same thing you do. A better system would be to have rival reviewed papers. The scrutiny would be much better.

So again, since the the models are wrong, why trust them?

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

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

So do you accept no science at all? No vaccinations or medication at all?

"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."

Climate scientists know volcanoes cool temporarily, they often point to when Pinotubo happened in the temperature charts (St. Helens wasn't nearly as influential).

@Nate
"Then why are the climate models consistently wrong?"

Arctic sea ice is declining faster than any of the IPCC model projections suggested but you all ignore that one since that doesn't fit the narrative you're after.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Schnee" so if Arctic sea ice is declining faster than the IPCC model projections suggested. Doesn't that mean that the model is wrong?

If warming is happening faster than predicted or slower than predicted that would mean that the model is wrong.

However, you are wrong about the sea ice. There are quite a few recent studies out there showing that the arctic sea ice is remaining too thick during the spring and polar bears are starving because they can't eat seals.

to comment

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