Quantcast

Comments about ‘Is science being misused for social policy?’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, May 30 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

Republicans used to be on board with the science, they even proposed carbon credits as a way to reduce emissions.

They believed all this just before the Koch brothers poured billions into republican campaigns.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Schnee" you realize that it was the politicians buying off scientists so that they could claim that smoking was ok. At that time it was politics using scientists to support their end goals.

You don't sound like you have much of a scientific background. If you look up what a 95% confidence interval is, you find that it is the standard for the hard sciences for publication.

You are wrong about scientists getting rich by using global warming. The scientists know what if they are able to attach Global Warming to their study that they can get government funding. If they told the government that Global Warming is natural, that would end their funding.

If you assume that all scientists have some integrity, you are wrong. Some do, but some do not. You don't seem to have followed the reports over the past several years where we found that the lead climate scientists have been investigated for falsifying data, for lying, and have avoided allowing outside sources to see the equations used in their models. The leading climate scientists act like criminals hiding criminal evidence.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

1 billion per day in research funding!? Wait! What!? And the scientists put this in their pockets!? The scandal!

But of course, a conservative is claiming this, so it's highly questionable.

Wait. It's not true? Nope.

What the conservative is referring to is a study called: The Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2013, put out by the Climate Policy Initiative. What the study shows is that approximately 1 billion dollars (359 billion a year) is being spent world wide on climate change mitigation. This includes things like money spent on producing and installing renewable energy sources. The money is both public and private.

359 billion per year world wide for climate change mitigation. In a 72 TRILLION dollar global GDP.

Someone want to figure out that percentage? Pops?

Steve McIntyre is the guy behind the Climate Audit blog. Right?

He also was the president of mining company Dumont Nickle, and president of Northwest Exploration Company. He's a strategic advisor for CGX Energy, Inc, a oil and gas exploration company.

No money from "big oil"? Please. They only pay his wage.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Sven,

Great. Please report the tax breaks (which means someone else pays the freight) for Exxon, Conoco, Chevron, etc. Also, please consider their combined income and assets vs. about everything else in the renewable energy side. Also, consider the large oil companies outside of the US (Gazprom, Aramco, Shell, BP, etc.) Then please explain why the combined financial interests of these companies cannot fight the huge (and evil) renewable energy companies.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt1701
"claim that smoking was ok."

Big business buying politicians.

"You don't sound like you have much of a scientific background."

I regularly use terms like Milankovitch cycles, Younger Dryas, and Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in my comments. I corrected your error about the percentage of the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 and your misinterpretation of the role of humans in CO2 levels. I understand what 95% confidence intervals are, I just couldn't figure out what you were asking for because your sentence was...

"If their science is so great, find me the study that hasn't been disproven that has a model that meets the 95% Confidence Interval."

so my confusion was merely over whether you wanted one for warming, sea ice, greenhouse gas effect, or some other thing. You weren't specific.

"If you assume that all scientists have some integrity, you are wrong."

I assume that enough of them have enough integrity that a giant global conspiracy hoax would not be able to be sustained. I have two degrees in meteorology. If it's all a hoax, I'd show the correct information; after all, I like being correct.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Schnee" you are falling for the Lysenkoism that pervaids the climate change studies.

Tell us what study out there that claims that CO2 is the driver for climate change meets the 95% confidence interval standard that the hard sciences require before publishing.

Yes, I want the warming. According to NASA the warmer the Earth gets, the more farmland will be opened. The more farm land is open, the more people can be fed. Do you want people to starve?

If you like being correct, then why do you support the Climate Change Alarmists? Even the NOAA has said that if we have 15 years without statistically significant warming that would indicate that the models are all wrong. We are now going on 17 years with no warming. If the models are wrong, why do you believe the conclusions based on those models? Are you smarter than the scientists at the NOAA?

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt
You're just spouting the corporate funded lingo, just like the smoking advocates before.

"Tell us what study out there that claims that CO2 is the driver for climate change meets the 95% confidence interval standard that the hard sciences require before publishing."

There's charts that have 95% confidence intervals on the range of warming that comes with CO2 increases. (IPCC AR4 WGI, Chapter 10.8).

"Do you want people to starve?"

Gaining farmland in Canada doesn't do much for the people in the Sahel that'll lose farmland due to expanded deserts or in Bangladesh because rising seas took over their rice growing areas.

"why do you believe the conclusions based on those models? "

If the model doesn't include solar cycles and we just had the weakest solar cycle in a century, well the result is rather intuitive, wouldn't you say? Despite that, we only had a pause. Personally, I tend towards the lower side of the 1.5-4C model range for century warming based on my assessment of the situation. I try and keep things in proper context, not like some who would distort and ignore details.

skrekk
Dane, WI

The problem with "science" and "facts" is that they undermine my religious beliefs.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Schnee" I read the report, and it raises more questions than it answers. First of all, they never link CO2 to global warming, nor do they actually show that their models meet the 95% confidence interval. Plus, the IPCC is not a journal, but is a compilation of journal articles.

One thing struck me as I was reading, which further leads me to believe that they are going the wrong direction. They state that Antarctica is not warming, and that the warming is concentrated in the lower climates. The interesting thing is that what they describe is almost identical to what scientists say would happen if water vapor was increased in the atmosphere. See "Water vapor a 'major cause of global warming and cooling'" in the Daily Mail.

As for food production, why can't food be shipped from one area to another? I buy grapes and strawberries from Chile. There are quite a few journal articles stating that a warmer Earth with more CO2 means greater crop yields around the globe.

You still fail to answer the question. Since the models are wrong (per NOAA criteria), why trust them, even on the low end?

BEMIDA
Provo, UT

Nothing in climate change science says that the solutions have to be a government takeover of people's lives. We need entrepreneurs and people with business experience to help find solutions. The climate change "deniers" are only making things worse by influencing us to postpone implementing market-type solutions now that likely will prevent trouble in the future. But, if we don't act now, disasters may result where the only solutions are government control.

If my house were burning down, I would still appreciate my neighbor telling me so--even if he or she disgusted me. To those who are dissing the warnings from climate scientists, please don't let your dislike of Al Gore poison your response!

Thank you Deseret News for publishing this thoughtful editorial.

to comment

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