Published: Thursday, June 19 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
From NOAA: "From 1880 to 2012, the globally averaged surface
temperature rose by 0.85° C (1.5°F). The rate of temperature increase
has risen as well. For the last 50 years, global temperature rose at an average
rate of about 0.13°C (around one-quarter degree Fahrenheit) per
decade-almost twice as fast as the 0.07°C per decade increase observed over
the previous half-century. In the next 20 years, scientists project that global
average temperature will rise by around 0.2°C (about one-third of a degree
Fahrenheit) per decade."
Apparently there is some question about Christopher Monckton's credentials.
The biography at the end of the article says he is the author of several
peer-reviewed articles about climate change and economics. Would it be possible
to list them, please?
"A study I conducted ...... shows it is 10-100 times costlier to prevent
global warming today than to let it happen and adapt."Odd
conclusion. If I were so sure that GW was not happening, I would conclude that
preventing it is free.
"That figure is not "cherry-picked" — another favorite phrase
of the climate communists."I avoid commenting on the subject of
climate change or global warming because I really don't understand all the
factors and there are certainly differing opinions from knowledgeable people to
make this an interesting debate.But one thing I know quite a bit
about after 60 years of living among humans on this planet and that is that name
calling never was, and never will be a responsible or effective way of changing
peoples minds. "Climate communists"?! Really. Since this is an
opinion essay on the editorial page I'd have thought that the DN Monitor
would have flagged that comment before it ever made out of the newsroom. But
then, reading the slant of this article I see the same standard was used in
evaluating what constitutes "name calling" as is used in the other posts
that make their way on to this page.
Lord Christopher Monckton works with the Heartland Institute, a corporate funded
conservative think tank. He also works for the Science and Public Policy
Institute, an organization that denies global warming. The
Heartland Institute worked with Phillip Morris in the 1990's to discount
the harmful effects of second hand smoke.Lord Christopher Monckton
appears to have no scientific educational credentials, and no serious standing
in the scientific community.Is this editorial a credible source of
"The war on coal". There is no war, only the decision to use more
efficient, cleaner forms of energy where possible.
Bracketing "those who question the magnitude of man’s influence on
climate with Holocaust deniers" is appropriate. Both groups defy reason and
facts. I am dubious about the credentials and independence of the writer.
Oh please FT. The war on coal sits right in the queue of wars with the war on
Christmas, the war on religion, the war on free speech, the war on freedom. Yes
righties before you lose it the war on women is equally as stupid
@ liberal Larry"Is this editorial a credible source of
information???"I think we all know the answer to that. We got a corporate scientist who once denied the harmful effects of
cigarettes.Well done Deseret News, well done.
I used to do this with my parents when I was younger. They would ask me about my
chores not being finished. I would pick and choose some things that happened,
exaggerate them, and make it sound like I was the victim. Ohhh the
vacuum broke. Ohhhh I ran out of soap. Ohhhh the grass was too wet to mow.At this point, refusing to adjust to global warming is like a spoiled
kid who doesn't want to admit his mistakes to his parents.
Just Google the author... and see what the House of Commons had to do with this
chap. Credibility isn't his strong suite. He has had some good ideas, no
doubt. But read about his recommendations for Aids victims, and you get an idea
about what planet this guy is orbiting.
“Science does not advance by consensus, or no one would ever have listened
to Galileo.” It was not science that opposed Galileo, it was
religious dogma, supported by the ultra-Conservative enforcers of that dogma.
Attempting to use Galileo to support the kind of anti-scientific
rationale that opposed him, the very OPPOSITE of what he stood for, is
absurd.Face it, the earth is warming. Whether the temperature rises
steadily in increments of seconds or sporadically in increments of decades, is
immaterial. The earth is warming.Right Wing America, with the
Alternate Reality it embraces, is immensely impressed with itself, but that
doesn’t affect the reality of climate change.“Humans
are good at adapting. That is why we are here.” Uh huh.Every extinct species that ever lived was good at adapting . . . Until
they went extinct.We will adapt huh? How? Undergo a series of
quick mutations to become hardier creatures, capable of withstanding temperature
extremes, and grow a set of gills, so we can live in our submerged homes?That is some stellar “Conservative” planning.
Based on the author's credentials, Mary Barker is looking pretty good. So,
DN, next time you need someone to defend the climate-change deniers, maybe go
find a real scientist. Oh, wait, you already did that. You printed a piece by
BYU geology professor Barr Bickmore, who, as a conservative, looked into the
actual science behind global warming and determined that his team was wrong.
Wow, the logical problems in this article are glaring! Here are just two shining
example of the brain power on display:First, the article title
– how can there be a solution, right or wrong, to a non-problem?Second, his solution (oh the irony is rich) is to “let it (climate
change) happen and adapt.” Really? Let what happen? The very thing
you’ve spent the entire article denying?As to the rest which
is no doubt full of falsehoods (e.g, our current weak solar cycle, and the fact
that Antarctic SEA ice is increasing due to the rapid melting of LAND ice)
I’ll leave it to other capable commenters to skewer… should be easy
given the dim light bulb we‘re dealing with here.
According to "Skeptical Science":"Christopher Monckton
is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer.
While not formally trained in science, Monckton is one of the most cited and
widely published climate skeptics, having even been invited to testify to the
U.S. Senate and Congress on several occasions."For a
comprehensive rebuttal of many of Christopher Monckton's arguments, check
out this presentation by Professor John Abraham (link omitted here, but you can
find it at Skeptical Science's website). Abraham has compiled many examples
where Monckton misrepresents the very scientists whose work he cites. Check out
this PDF of Monckton quotes versus the scientists who in their own words explain
how Monckton misrepresents their research (link again provided at Skeptical
These 'think tank' originating paid opinion pieces should have a
longer blurb at the end describing the author and their work a little more. A
little more disclosure, please.
Climate scientists use 30 year climate norms. 13yr 4mths is the "what's
the longest I can get away with and still be correct in my statement" value.
We're in the weakest solar cycle in a century; we should be cooling. Yet
the 2000s were the warmest decade on record and we keep getting one of the
warmest few El Nino, neutral, and La Nina years on record these recent years
despite that very weak solar cycle. We know that natural forcings are always at
play, as well as anthropogenic forcings (though some might not believe those).
The equation would be something like temperature change = nat force + anth
force. What if what we're seeing is just a balance between those two terms
on the right helped out by that very weak solar cycle?"A survey
of 11,944 climate papers published since 1991 showed just 64 — or 0.5
percent of the sample — as saying they agreed with the panel’s
contention that recent global warming was mostly manmade. "That
number pretends all others disagree. Many just don't say anything since
it's not relevant to the paper.
"Global sea ice extent has not changed much in 35 years. "The Arctic summer minimum sea ice extent has dropped by over 50% in 35
years."What of Hurricane Sandy? Or Haiyan? Or wildfires in
Russia and California? One thing we know for sure is recent extreme-weather
events cannot have been caused by recent global warming. There has not been any
recent global warming."Global warming shifts odds, we would
still carry the shifted odds from the warming the previous century since
we're still at those warmed levels from around 2000.As for
Monckton, he is a journalism degree holder and his so-called climate articles
were published not in major journals but in Nexus magazine, a magazine that also
published conspiracy articles about UFOs and a 9/11 plot.
"And there is no consensus anyway [in favor of anthropomorphic global
warming]. "But there is in the form of entire organizations,
e.g. the American Geophysical Union, the National Geographical Society, NOAA,
etc.This guy also makes wild statements like "environmentalists
are new Marxists." I wish. I am the only Marxist I know in the
environmental movement. Of course I don't know everybody, but I have yet
to run into another Marxist at a climate activist gathering.
To summarize the article. Global warming doesn't jive with my
political beliefs, therefore all of the science behind it is junk science.
Besides even if the earth was warming, which it isn't, it would be to hard
and costly to make any changes to our society (never mind that any job lost in
the coal industry would probably be made up for with a job created in the green
industry) so we should just not do anything and adapt to our changing climate,
that isn't really changing by the way. I'm a real
scientist. Really I am.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments