Comments about ‘Letter: Smart warming plan’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, June 15 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Faith requires no proof. Fact can be dismissed with a hint of dissent.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Those who oppose improvements in energy are from the same mold as those cavemen who resisted the wheel for as long as they could. Or until they actually tried using one.

Remember all the screaming and whining about Frontrunner before it was built?

higv
Dietrich, ID

Bring on global warming as warmer temperatures are more pleasant anyway and more things grow. Manmade climate change is not a fact it is a way to control our lives and destroy prosperity. We cannot control the climate why are we letting it control us. When we no longer have electricity or fuel do to what writers of this letter want us to do what are we going to do. And why are people living longer after the industrial revolution than before? Name one person that died because of "man made climate change"

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

We have been trained so well and for so long that anything to help clean up our environment will be bad that we don't even listen to the helpful and constructive proposals anymore.

Admitting that they're good ideas or worthwhile plans to consider (if not act upon) means that those "liberals" were right and "we conservatives" were wrong.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Be very careful not to fall for the Koch brothers' propaganda. There is absolutely no attempt being made by anyone to eliminate "electricity or fuel to what writers of this letter want us to do."

Any educated and thinking person will easily see the fallacy behind the argument that people are living longer since the industrial revolution despite the undeniable effects of that revolution upon our earth. The industrial revolution has nothing to do with advances in medical care, food supply, sanitation, clean water and clean air that have been the actual reasons for a longer life.

Asking that we name anyone who has died because of climate change is a great bit of conservative silliness. No one has -- yet. But if we don't take action soon, many will be dying either as direct results of drought, famine, war or other things resulting from an earth that can no longer support a growing human population.

This planet, like any natural system, has a finite carrying capacity. Damaging our home planet in any way will have consequences. WE won't pay the price, but our descendants will.

Who may they thank for that? People like our friend from Idaho.

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

exactly right HIGV, couldn't have said it better myself.

Climate change has been going on for millions of years, no need to be overreacting now. If the alarmist crowd is so convinced, start imposing your ideas and theories on yourselves and fellow believers, under a voluntary program. No need to force the rest of us to participate. If your ideas are so wonderful, the rest of us will follow. Freedom is a wonderful thing. Besides, if you really think the US is the main cause of alleged manmade climate change, and the majority of us are "believers", then you will have great success getting the majority to follow your ideas and programs in a voluntary manner. That will make such a huge, wonderful difference right there. (sarcasm off) My guess is that will never happen, because the climate really isn't the issue with this crowd. Control and restriction of freedom, along with punishing prosperity are the real goals of this crowd!!

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@higv
" We cannot control the climate why are we letting it control us."

We caused urban air pollution problems, we caused the ozone hole, we caused acid rain, we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has increased in atmospheric concentration dramatically the past 200 years... why is it so unrealistic to think this time... no, we're not having an impact?

"Bring on global warming as warmer temperatures are more pleasant anyway"

Personal opinion: I disagree with that.

VST
Bountiful, UT

Meanwhile, my comment to Mr. Elias’ original letter still hangs out there with NO response as to actually solving the problem:

I stated the following: According to the European Commission and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (EDGAR)):

China increased their carbon emissions from 26.4% in 2010 to 29.2% in 2012.

The U.S. reduced their carbon emissions from 17.3% in 2010 to 16.2% in 2012.

The reality is this:

The U.S. cannot save the World from increased carbon emissions all by itself. As shown above, U.S. actions alone will not make any significant difference in the amount of carbon emissions being added into the atmosphere.

As I have stated before (and most people ignore), until you get the rest of the World to “pony up” in their efforts for reducing carbon emissions, anything the U.S. does without worldwide participation is the equivalent of spitting into the wind.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

There are some in this forum specifically that believe 97% of the world's climate scientists (those who are trained in science that specifically study our environment and climate) have a massive conspiracy to control your very being. Poppycock. These same people encourage the spewing of toxins into the air, waterways and nature for the benefit of a very few beneficiaries. There never has been an oil pipeline that has not leaked and history has shown us that with some effort we can make strides to protect our environment. Since the EPA was introduced, we have see forests that were once dying from acid rain make major improvements and when was the last time you saw a river catch on fire like happened in Cleveland? There is no conspiracy. You can't even get 3 tpeas to agree on everything, ie Cantor and what's his name. Time to turn off Beck, turn on rationality, and pull our heads out of the sand. Best error on the side of caution, we will not save ourselves by earth destruction.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

higv:

Heat waves are not "more pleasant."

No, the extra CO2 doesn't help "things grow." Yes, the plants get bigger, but the food value of what the produce is _lower_. That's the science.

Yes, we absolutely can control the climate. We're doing it now. BTW, natural sources of climate change have been rigorously studied and found to be _not_ the cause of global warming. The evidence couldn't be clearer - it's us burring fossil fuels.

No one is even remotely suggesting an end to electricity. Far from it - the goal is to encourage new sources of electricity from non-polluting sources.

Re your comment "Name one person that died," I have to ask - what's your standard of proof? Does a person who dies from a heat wave, or a drought, or a flood, or a hurricane, or crop failure, count? If rapidly changing climate causes a significant increase in these things, then why wouldn't an increase in deaths due to these climate-related problems be attributable to climate change?

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Mr. Speiser "It's a fact that all of us can see."

Everywhere except the thermometer.

one old man
Ogden, UT

"Bring on global warming as warmer temperatures are more pleasant anyway and more things grow." Only up to a certain point. And then . . . ?

"Manmade climate change is not a fact it is a way to control our lives and destroy prosperity." According to the Koch brothers and other propagandists.

" We cannot control the climate why are we letting it control us." Ask the people who live in the Sahara how much the climate controls them. Or, for that matter, ask an Eskimo.

" When we no longer have electricity or fuel do to what writers of this letter want us to do what are we going to do." Is anyone proposing to do away with electricity or fuel? No.

" And why are people living longer after the industrial revolution than before?" Improvements in medical care, cleaner water, cleaner air, environmental regulations.

" Name one person that died because of "man made climate change" None have -- yet. But unless we smarten up, our descendants will.

Thinkin\' Man
Rexburg, ID

What global warming? Even the most biased, jaded experts have admitted that warming stopped in 1998 while CO2 levels continue to rise. That means the climate models are wrong, and that making trillion-dollar decisions based on them would be premature if not outright foolish. There is obviously a lot we don't understand about the controls on climate (and that CO2 is not the main control).

That said, reducing air pollution is obviously a good thing. We should be focusing on the sulfates, particulates, nitrates, metals, ozone, and aerosols that are the real and immediate problems. We should be replacing coal-fired power plants with nuclear power plants, importing high-mpg vehicles from Europe and Japan, developing fuel cell technology, stopping the ethanol foolishness, stopping rain forest deforestation, planting trees, and doing the things that make real and immediate differences.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

"Bring on global warming as warmer temperatures are more pleasant anyway and more things grow."

Try telling that to someone in New Orleans or New Jersey.

Those living along the coastlines, low areas, or near rivers (most of the population) might disagree with some sofa scientist from Utah.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

@VST
"As shown above, U.S. actions alone will not make any significant difference in the amount of carbon emissions being added into the atmosphere."

Yes. Now if a country were to take the lead and develop an efficient alternative source of energy then well... what's to stop the companies owning those solutions from selling their innovative solution to other countries and spur change through the free market?

@Nate
"Everywhere except the thermometer."

Does the 2000s being the warmest decade in the modern record not mean anything? I saw the other day that even AGW skeptic John Christy was predicting that thanks to the expected to develop El Nino, 2015 may end up the warmest year in the modern record. (And yes, El Nino is natural, but there's a reason the recent El Ninos are the warmest El Nino years and the recent La Ninas are the warmest La Nina years, and that is because there's an underlying warming trend increasing the baseline).

Longfellow
Holladay, UT

Sorry Bob, but questionable science leads to bad policy. You can be excused for confusing the talking points of activists, politicians, and lazy journalists for real science.

First: "Climate Change" is a meaningless term in the context of this discussion. The proper term is "Anthropogenic Global Warming" or AGW for short.

Second: AGW is real and is caused by the "Greenhouse Effect".

Third: One cause of the Greenhouse Effect is carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by human activity.

Fourth: The critical question is how much of the measured warming of the climate is attributable to AGW.

Most climate scientists believes that AGW is responsible for a significant portion of the measured warming. These scientists have developed formulas based on this belief and incorporated these formulas into climate computer models. These models predict that if the concentration of carbon dioxide continues to increase at its present pace, significant increases in the earth's temperature will follow.

The problem is the models are seriously over predicting the actual measured temperature rise and it's getting worse every month. Until the world's climate scientists develop reliable climate models, implementing policy changes with significant economic impact is unwise.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

@VST "As I have stated before (and most people ignore), until you get the rest of the World to “pony up” in their efforts for reducing carbon emissions, anything the U.S. does without worldwide participation is the equivalent of spitting into the wind." We will not get the rest of the world to "pony up" until we do it. The U.S. must lead. I know there are no guarantees the rest of the world will cooperate, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that if we don't reduce our emissions the rest of the world won't either.

higv
Dietrich, ID

@Blue Does manmade global warming cause heatwaves, droughts, hurricane or crop failure. Those things have happened a long time before the industrial revolution, We are not doing anything to cause death now.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Frozen Fractals "Does the 2000s being the warmest decade in the modern record not mean anything?"

It doesn't mean much, because we all know the reason behind that awkward construction: current measured temperatures are far cooler than the temperatures predicted by the vast majority of climate models.

(See "EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature," by Roy Spencer.)

(See also: "95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong," by Roy Spencer.)

When a theory is contradicted by observation, the scientific approach is to admit that the theory is flawed; but global warming hysteria has little to do with science, and much to do with politics.

We also know the reason why you are focused on the "modern record": proxy data shows that during its long history, our planet has been much warmer than it is now. When you look at, say, the 3000 year record, we are still below the median temperature.

booshway
Woods Cross, UT

First of all, CO2 is a microfraction of 1% of the atmosphere. Water vapor is 96% of the atmosphere. Which do you think has more affect on the climate? The sun is the driver of our atmosphere and climate. The AGW religionists always ignore this fact. Not one of them has answered the question - if man causes "global warming" then why are the polar ice caps on Mars melting? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the sun. The temperature graph so happily displayed by AGW religionists shows that CO2 goes up AFTER a warming period, not before. Why? Because when it is warm there are more plants and animals, and when they die they decompose which releases CO2, thus increasing the amount of CO2. When you study "global warming" you find all sorts of things - like - lying about temperature readings, faking temperature readings, lying about faking them, ignoring anything that doesn't support AGW agenda (like volcanoes), paint used on weather stations has changed and has affected the readings, weather stations too close to buildings and parking lots, etc. etc., etc.
What is the "solution" to AGW? Taxes. That says it all.

to comment

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