"We certainly cannot change weather patterns, and it is arrogant and
self-serving thinking to suppose that we can."But hasn't
the international agreement on CFC's been effective in protecting the ozone
layer of the stratosphere? This is a case of human action changing a
geophysical condition. Your statement is flat out false.
Sigh...People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of
I wouldn't want to count on Lake Mead for power and water for very long.
Keep telling yourself that when you're dowsing for your next glass of
Deserts are dry. That is the definition.They were dry before man
walked the earth. Arrogant is the right word for men who take credit
for the work of God, or Mother Nature, or the big bang.
At last we agree Maverick. The fact is the earth has been cooling for a decade
due to decreases in solar activity. But like you say, some people will continue
to believe otherwise. The good news is time will render them and their hoaxes
obsolete. Just like the last "next ice age is approaching" hoax of the
Yes, Mountanman, and soon we will begin to float above the Earth because, as we
all know, gravity is only a theory. And cigarettes are actually good for us
because scientists told us they are not, and we all know that scientists
don't really know anything. All of these silly hoaxes just can't be
First, the author has no concept of socialism. Second, the earth is warming and
the only real debate is what to do about it. At the very minimum we should stop
throwing crap in the atmosphere, and our waterways not to mention strip mining.
Someone is going to pay, if not in this life the next.
Yes, the Southwest is a desert. But, in the last four decades it has been
significantly drier. Lake Powell and Lake Mead are only about 50% of capacity. I
would ask why God has cut back on precipitation when Utah has more than doubled
its population in those 40 years and the Saints need more water?
Yes, it's a dry region but it's been below average the last few years.
Granted I wouldn't read too much into that since 4 years ago we had a very
wet year with a very large snowpack. However, with a warming climate, and more
snowfall falling as rain in the future decades it can be harmful to the water
situation in the state. @MountanmanActually there's been
no statistically significant cooling the past decade and only cherrypicking
leads to a statistically insignificant decline being drawable. Considering all
the recent La Nina years and the weakest solar cycle in a century, the fact that
we've merely stalled suggests that there's something counterbalancing
the natural cooling influences we see.
Wonder. I tried to understand your irrational response. What does smoking have
to do with this subject? But as far a science goes, everything we think we know
will eventually be proven to be completely false or at least very incomplete. As
our grandparent's science is to us, so will our science be to our
grandchildren. As has been pointed out, solar activity has recently decreased
resulting in a cyclical cooling period and is not related in any way to C02.
But, if you want to believe the earth is still getting warmer, go right ahead
but history will eventually lay this hoax to rest as other hoaxes of their day.
Going over the the east coast, Florida, south Florida is already experiencing
problems with rising ocean levels. It seems the rising sea level occasioned by
global warming is causing more and more sea water to flow into South
Florida's limestone substratum, creating unpleasant flooding right now!
Mountanman: "The fact is the earth has been cooling for a decade due to
decreases in solar activity."You offer two demonstrably false
statements in one short sentence.The "cooling" myth
represents a narrow, distorted interpretation of a tiny subset of temperature
records. The real science, representing decades of temperature data for air,
water, and land, show that the warming we're talking about continues
unabated and is accelerating. The Sun's total output has
actually dipped slightly in the past 50 years. Solar irradiance as a source for
climate change has been studied carefully, and rejected by research findings.Last week NOAA announced that the global average for CO2 in our
atmosphere has, for the first time in millions of years, exceeded 400 ppm. The time to stop denying the reality of climate change and acknowledge
the overwhelming evidence that this change is due to human combustion of fossil
fuels is _now_. We have a choice to make - we can spend our
fortunes and our future reacting, too little and too late, to climate change, or
we can recognize the opportunities for new technologies and new business models
We can't change weather? What if we dam a river and create a large lake -
do the winds pick up its water? If we chop down trees and a desert follows,
does this not affect the weather patterns?I think we have been
altering weather to some degree for centuries.
The whole environmentalist as socialist schemer thing comes from AM talk radio -
started years ago with Limbaugh. I'm a socialist, but almost all of the
environmentalists I know aren't.But since I am a socialist and
an environmentalist know that I am scheming to take power. I do this all day in
my basement - scheming, scheming, scheming.
It's a proven FACT that humans can't control the climate OR the
weather. If we could control it... would we be allowing tornados,
hurricanes, droughts, floods, heat waves, starvation, weather problems like we
had in the East this winter.... etc? Obviously it's NOT under our
control...We can't control it. But that fact does not mean we
should not be conserving, polluting as little as possible, and doing everything
we can to MINIMIZE our human impact.But drop the silly pretense that
we CAN control the climate or the Weather. We can't.
So help me out here.Is it extra cold due to global warming or is it
too hot due to the coming ice age?
Experience is not science but it is still knowledge. We just experienced the
coldest winter in decades with record and near record low temps and snow fall in
much of N. America and Russia. The ice has not melted like we were told, in fact
it has increased at both poles, believe it or not. It is snowing today in much
of the Rockies! No scientist predicted any of what we are experiencing! The
earth is cooling! How do we know? Because we are experiencing it, period!
@ MM. Actually, colder winters and more extreme weather (like snow
late in the year) is exactly what has been predicted by scientists. It's
obvious that you haven't actually read anything from scientists.
It is not a matter of whether we can control the climate but whether or not we
can influence it. There are a LOT of things we cannot control but can
@ MountainmanScience does advance and what we thought we knew during
our grandparents' age has indeed changed -- but not necessarily
"disproven." Science is useful because it uses logic, reason, and
observable data to test hypotheses to understand the natural world. The
scientific method allows for a continued refinement of that knowledge. It
allows us to get closer to understanding reality. To simply dismiss science as
something that will totally be disproven sometime in the future is folly. The alternative to science is wishful thinking and blind
"belief" in people's uneducated opinion. My
observation is that climate change doesn't fit the values of people who
deny it. It doesn't conform to what they read in the Bible. It
doesn't conform to their beliefs in "limited government" and
"collective action" to solve global problems (as the world did to solve
the ozone layer problem during the Reagan era). It seems to fly in the face of
"free markets" where "corporations are free to pollute and exploit
consumers" as all part of the "natural order" of "survival of
the fittest." But because climate change conflicts with
people's sensibilities doesn't mean that it isn't reflective of
So what you global warming people are saying is that because of global warming,
it is warmer and colder, even though there has been no warming in the last 17
1/2 years. And you wonder why your credibility is questioned.
Scientists will always disagree but what is not debatable is what we are
experiencing. Be sure and put on your jacket,its very cold outside today and the
big news of the day is it is snowing in much of the Rocky Mountains. Brrrr! What
an ever growing number of reasonable, rational people can't get their minds
around is how C02 can cause colder weather and warmer weather, flooding and
droughts all at the same time. Especially when one considers that there have
been floods and droughts and cooler weather than normal and warmer than normal
weather somewhere on the planet since time began. The only real conclusion is
the climate is out of our control and it is always changing, not because of C02
but because of changes in solar activity.
Ya -- KSL is in on it!The Deseret News is in on it!The State
of Utah is in on it!They are all in on that great Government
conspiracy ruse for telling all of us that last year was the hottest in all of
recorded Utah History!
Those who claim we can't influence the weather, check out the history of
the "Dust Bowl" which started as a drought, but was prolonged by
ignorance. Again ignorance and not understanding science and
scientific method, is displayed here with regularity, even bragging about 5th
grade science knowledge being complete.
@Blue"Solar irradiance as a source for climate change has been studied
carefully, and rejected by research findings."Solar irradiance
is still playing a role in climate change even if it's not the primary role
in the last few decades, it's just not the primary role of late.@2bits"Obviously it's NOT under our control..."Probably for the best, I like snow and thunderstorms too much that I'd be
run out of town if I got the weather I wanted. Probably should figure out how to
build an ice castle...@Mountainman"We just experienced the
coldest winter in decades with record and near record low temps and snow fall in
much of N. America and Russia. "You're in Idaho, you had
the 75th warmest of 119 winters there (Dec-Feb). The contiguous 48 was the 35th
coldest primarily centered in the Great Lakes and high plains (California had
it's warmest DJF period). Globally it was the 21st warmest February on
record after the 4th warmest January on record.
@The Real Maverick"Actually, colder winters"That's not predicted under global warming/climate change. What you might
be mistaking for that is the speculation (it's still under a lot of needed
research) that the declining Arctic sea ice is leading to increased amplitude in
jet stream circulation which can lead to more extremes in the polar vortex, but
wouldn't lead to colder winters on average. @MountainmanSea ice extent in the Arctic was extremely anomalously low in 2012 (the record
minimum) compared to other recent years due to natural jet stream patterns.
It's recovery in 2013 (still below all IPCC model projections) was merely a
return to the 30 year downward trendline and no sign at all that we're
going to continue to regain ice. Antarctic sea ice has been increasing;
that's a different situation (due to increasing southern ocean wind stress
and Antarctica being a cold landmass as opposed to the, relatively speaking,
warmer Arctic ocean)."its very cold outside today and the big
news of the day is it is snowing in much of the Rocky Mountains."Kudos; most Americans wouldn't want to pick cherries for a living.
@Mountanman"What an ever growing number of reasonable, rational people
can't get their minds around is how C02 can cause colder weather and warmer
weather, flooding and droughts all at the same time."CO2 causes
global warming, it doesn't lead to colder weather. Flooding and droughts
can both occur more severely with global warming. How it works is that we start
with the simplified idea that we have a similar (more or less) pattern of
precipitation (ignore shifts in precipitation like how Spain and southern Italy
should be drier with the expansion of the Hadley cell). Let's
say Oklahoma has a drought this year and North Carolina has a flood this year as
a hypothetical. Now let's say both areas are several degrees warmer and we
have that same precipitation pattern. There's more evaporation which makes
the drought worse, but there's more moisture in the atmosphere so the areas
that are getting precipitation are getting more so the floods are worse too. It
basically just makes things more extreme for precipitation (of course one after
the other can also make it faster to recovery from these extremes as well).
By 1998, the world would be destroyed by flooding when the ice caps melt.By 2003, the world would be destroyed when carbon emissions block out the sun
and cool the earth.By 2008, it was back to flooding.Now it's
drought.Anytime anything ever happens in the weather that
doesn't fit right into the pattern of "average", it is
peoples' fault, and the solution is to give the government the power to be
even bigger bullies and make sure we don't cook our food with fires so that
tortoises don't die out.
My favorite article explaining the GW alarmists is this one:"The
Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory" in
Forbes. There we find that significant scientific research was put into proving
and supporting bad theories that went against the truth. The most interesting
thing from the article was this "Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with
faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding
and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his followers and media
acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as
bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism."That sure does sound a lot like modern GW alarmists.If that
doesn't convince you enough, lets look at history to examples of when the
government has used science to lie to us for whatever political gain they
needed:In the 1930's and 1940's they told us smoking was
good.In the early 1900's they promoted eugenics, and have
continued to practice that to this day.In the late 1960's they
used science to tell us what a "balanced" diet is. Since then the
obesity rates have been going up.The point is, Government often uses
scientists for political gain.
Mountanman,Your comment reminds me of the weather man who forecasts a 30%
chance of rain today (when it's currently raining outside).If
it's raining right now... there is 100% chance of rain today! Regardless
of the percentage the models had.Experience is not science but it is
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTIt's a proven FACT that humans
can't control the climate OR the weather. ======= Is that sort of like the radical right and their -- it's a proven
FACT that we can't control the lunatics arming themselves to the hilt with
AK-47s or AR-15s from opening fire on dozens of school children, so why try to
do anything about that either?
To "LDS Liberal" actually, the facts are that when you DON'T have a
gun free zones in and around schools you don't have the shootings. Have
you noticed that the mass shootings that make the news are always in "gun
free zones" where crazy people know there will be no resistance.The fact is that if you want to control the lunatics that want to go on
shooting rampages, you can do so simply by allowing the public to be armed at
By definition global warming is a process, not an event. And it is global, not
local. A few cold days - or even a cold winter - in your
neighborhood is not definitive. While parts of the eastern US had a cold winter,
Anchorage Alaska was, on many days, the warmest place in the country and
Australia had the Pacific Rim had record breaking heat for all of January. In fact, globally, we are having almost twice as many record setting hot
days as record setting cold days. That is the troublesome trend. And
yes, change happens and there has been global change before. The difference now
is how fast it is happening. Decades, not many centuries, and the change ties in
with the industrial revolution and the raise of atmospheric CO2.
@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTand My favorite article explaining
the GW deniers is this one:"According to the abiogenic
hypothesis, petroleum is not fossil based, but formed from deep carbon deposits.
Supporters of the abiogenic hypothesis suggest that a great deal more petroleum
exists on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from
carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the mantle."BTW
-- Less than 0.0001% of Scientists believe THIS one RedShirt, Yet here you
are arguing against 98% of them.
Hurray for Ben! He is 100% correct! And so is George Will.
To "Open Minded Mormon" just because you repeat a lie over and over
again does not make it true. IF Global Warming is goes like oil formation
theories, the alarmists will be proven wrong.Read the following:"Abiotic Synthesis Of Methane: New Evidence Supports 19th-Century
Idea On Formation Of Oil And Gas" Science Daily"Hydrocarbons
Could Form Deep In the Earth From Methane, Not Animal Remains" Popular
Science"The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil" Live
Science"Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring" USA Today"Petroleum may be Abiogenic not Fossil Based" Science 360"Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle
conditions" Journal of Nature Geoscience"Oil Might Be a
Renewable Resource, and Other Things You Did Not Know" Scientific
AmericanSeems like the only deniers of abiotic oil are AGW
alarmists. Scientists are looking more into it since it will dramatically
increase the world oil supply.But then again you are following the
Lysenkoism methods. I don't expect you to fully understand the science.
Remember that according to Yale University, the Tea Party conservatives
understand science best.
@RedShirt, from the Popular Science article you cite: "About 99 percent of
all the hydrocarbons in oil and natural gas are derived from the compressed,
heated remains of ancient living organisms like zooplankton and algae."From the Scientific American article you cite: "There's a crazy
theory that crude oil comes from phytoplankton and another that it just sort of
trickles up from the earth's mantle (here's a wonderfully simple
dismissal of the notion), but you'll have to work pretty hard to find
anybody in mainstream science who buys into it."Finally,
regarding your Yale University claim, check out "Congratulations, tea party
members: You are just as vulnerable to politically biased misinterpretation of
science as everyone else! Is fixing this threat to our Republic part of your
program?" by Dan Kahan, the Yale professor whose blog post on the Tea Party
@On the other hand:Wait. You read the articles and pulled quotes? I
think that is cheating. @Informed Voter: "Hurray for Ben! He is
100% correct! And so is George Will."George Will is a political
commentator who gets paid for 800 words a few times a week. He has a BA, MA and
PhD in soft subjects - philosophy and religion, politics, and the like. Not a
bit of actual science training, let alone specializing in climate or related
studies. Is Ben a climate scientist?
To "On the other hand" the point isn't that it is a mainstream
idea, but that abiotic oil theories are gaining in how much geologists are
looking into them and are starting to take them more seriously. The data does
indicate that something is going on that does not support the idea of dino oil.
One study said that the Russians were getting oil out of wells that went down
40,000 feet, the deepest fossils are at 16,000 feet. It raises a huge question
of how does oil form so far below the oldest fossil?However, just to
make some of the liberals out there squirm today, lets quote the Yale Professor.
He said "identifying with the Tea Party correlates positively (r = 0.05, p
= 0.05) with scores on the science comprehension measure..."
Most of the commenter here don't know the difference between the
pseudo-science put out by the fossil fuels climate denying operation and real
peer-reviewed science from the IOCC and the U.S. Climate Assessment .If they
did, they'd be demanding action on climate change.
@Redshirt1701, the Yale Professor also said: "consider the correlation
between science comprehension and identifying with the tea-party: r = 0.05, p =
0.05."Anyone who might be tempted to beat his or her chest in a
triumphal tribal howl over the practically meaningless correlation between
right-left political outlooks & science comprehension could thus expect to
find him- or herself fatally impaled the very next instant on the sharp spear
tip of simple, unassailable logic."And a bit further down,
"Also ignored, of course, was that liberals scored higher than conservatives
on the same measure and in the same dataset."So yeah, it does
make me squirm when someone totally fails to grasp what an expert is trying to
say and then proceeds to ascribe to that expert claims that the expert not only
didn't make but in fact completely disagrees with.
To "On the other hand" but that is conservatives in general, the point
is that the Tea Party, a subset of conservatives know science better than
liberals.The funny thing is that the expert doesn't know any
conservatives, and was shocked by the results. It appears that he was covering
his butt because the results do not support the liberal dogma.
To "On the other hand" now you are trying to dig yourself out of a
hole.The fact is that the Tea Party conservatives know more about
science than liberals. By using the entire spectrum of conservatives you only
show that it is difficult for liberals to accept not being told they are the
best.Face it, just like the Yale Professord did. Tea Party people
know more about science than you do.
From his very authoritative-sounding letter, you would think that Mr. Booth is a
climate expert. He's not. Neither is George Will. Wishing something
doesn't make it so. Mr. Booth is still entitled to his opinion that climate
change is a ruse, but that ship has sailed. There is no more debate. Climate
change is a fact if life, it's human-caused, and it may already be too late
to reverse it. Denial is not a viable approach to the problem. It never was.
It's just easier than doing something about it.
@RedShirt, I encourage you to call upon your superior powers of science
comprehension to go read the claims Dr. Kahan was trying to make. Here's a
hint: he was not claiming that the Tea Party as a whole are particularly good at
To "On the other hand" you really should read it. Yes Dr Kahan
wasn't trying to make that point, but that is waht his data indicates. His
data shows that when you compare the people that identifed themselves as
belonging to the "Tea Party" to the rest of the people surveyed, they in
fact had a better understanding of science. That is explained quite clearly in
his last graph of the data. But then again you are not a "Tea Party"