Letter: Warming ruse


Return To Article
  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 15, 2014 4:58 p.m.

    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" so....

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    May 15, 2014 3:52 p.m.

    @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 comprehending science.

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    May 15, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    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.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 15, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    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.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 15, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    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.

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    May 14, 2014 7:02 p.m.

    @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.

  • Sciencefirst Lancaster, PA
    May 14, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    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 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 14, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    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..."

  • TrihsDer ISS Enterprise, OH
    May 14, 2014 12:16 a.m.

    @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?

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    May 13, 2014 9:05 p.m.

    @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 you misconstrue.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    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 American

    Seems 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.

  • Informed Voter South Jordan, UT
    May 13, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    Hurray for Ben! He is 100% correct! And so is George Will.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 13, 2014 6:54 a.m.

    USS Enterprise, UT

    and 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.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 13, 2014 4:57 a.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 12, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    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 all times.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 12, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    It'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?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 12, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    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 still knowledge...

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 12, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    May 12, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 12, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    "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).

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 12, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    @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.

    Sea 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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 12, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    "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.

    "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...

    "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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 12, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 12, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    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!

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 12, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 12, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    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.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    May 12, 2014 6:28 a.m.

    @ Mountainman

    Science 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 reality.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 11, 2014 7:57 p.m.

    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 influence.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 11, 2014 7:11 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 11, 2014 5:44 p.m.

    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!

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 11, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    So help me out here.

    Is it extra cold due to global warming or is it too hot due to the coming ice age?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 11, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 11, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    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 before us.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    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 Hayden, ID
    May 11, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    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.

    Actually 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.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    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?

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    May 11, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    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.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    May 11, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    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 believed.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 11, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    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 '70's.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 11, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 11, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    Keep telling yourself that when you're dowsing for your next glass of water.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    May 11, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    I wouldn't want to count on Lake Mead for power and water for very long.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 11, 2014 12:32 a.m.


    People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2014 12:15 a.m.

    "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.