Comments about ‘EPA guidelines: wrong solution to a non-problem’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 19 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Wednesday, June 18 2014 9:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

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."

micawber
Centerville, UT

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?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"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.

ECR
Burke, VA

"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.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

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 information???

FT
salt lake city, UT

"The war on coal". There is no war, only the decision to use more efficient, cleaner forms of energy where possible.

Esquire
Springville, UT

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.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

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

FreedomFighter41
Provo, UT

@ 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.

Henderson
Orem, UT

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.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

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.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

“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.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

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.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

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.

Ford DeTreese
Provo, UT

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 Science).

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

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.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

"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.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

"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.

andyjaggy
American Fork, UT

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.

to comment

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