Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Be aware of climate’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 1 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

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

Without addressing the issue of climate change, scientific questions are seldom if ever settled absolutely. Conclusions are, at best, a current status statement and legitimate scientists can only say that my data is less wrong than yours. This is particularly true with computer projections of multifactorial phenomenon.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Frozen Fractals,
Eubank for sure wasn't talking about the number of 100+ days. I'm sure of that. He said, "We've only had 2 days so far that were above average"... It caught my ear too late to know for sure if he was talking about this month or this year. But after thinking about it a little... 2 days is way to few for it to be in the year.

If anybody at KSL reads these comments... have him clarify tonight.

===========

As for the science... I think we will ALWAYS be learning more about the climate. Let's not close the books yet. Planetary climate is so complex... I don't know if us humans will EVER understand it completely. Much less explain it, or even be able to predict it, much less be able to control it.

==========

As for the politics (solution for global-climate requires global-governance). I don't like ANY government I don't have a vote in.

It would become corrupt (find ways to bring $$$ and power to friends, while making life difficult for your enemies). Too many people in global-governance arena want to diminish America.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@HaHaHaHa – “Those are things that you believe will make a difference, and it doesn't impose your beliefs on me.”

Ironic given the number of religious people in this country who want to do exactly that (impose their beliefs on public policy). And it’s worth noting they do this while having far less evidence (and lots of counter-evidence) for the validity of their beliefs than we do on climate change.

Given this fact and the conservative approach to terrorism (e.g. Dick Cheney’s 1% precautionary principle) I’m left wondering how (and if) logic ever plays a role for conservatives in deciding issues.

Maybe we need another approach (or challenge) – read the IPCC report on climate change and then pray about it – but do so with an open mind and a faithful heart. I know that 2nd one sounds strange (in a “begging the question” sort of way) but I didn’t make up the rules on this challenge.

jsf
Centerville, UT

...but of course, you mention the "s-e-c-r-e-t" corrected data,
from what? NOAA website 1936 76.80 2012 76.77. Climate at a glance. Same website saying July 2012 was the hottest.

Why is it when a fact is presented to GW extremists, FF immediately discounts it as restricted to a portion of the US, no it was the whole nation not one part. Then when ldsl, OMM, airnaut, and other names, can't accept a true statement it must be from those crazy conservative talking point sources. Then he dismisses the provider of the facts as Global Warming deniers,
are also birthers,
Obama is a secret Muslim,
insist Saddam Husein had WMDs,
Mexicans are silently invading America to recapture it,
Flouride in the water is Government mind control,
the moon landings were fake,
and the 2nd shooter of JFK. This sounds like a bigoted individual that lumps a group of people into all the negative stereotype he can muster, for the sake of dismissing their input to the discussion.

In this case and this fact the AGW advocates are showing they are the deniers of science and facts.

Neanderthal
Phoenix, AZ

What we need to know from the author is... has he sold his gas-engine vehicle and got hisself a bike to ride to work, etc.? I would bet he hasn't nor does he intend to. So, we can take what he's telling us with a grain or salt.

@SharpHooks:
"Man is responsible for global warming."

You got that right. My relative Neanderthals were responsible for the last global warming which occurred several thousand years ago.

4601
Salt Lake City, UT

FreedomFighter41
Provo, UT
That sounds great, but the WH has so tarnished renewable energy with wasteful subsidies, inside deals, crony capitalism and ill advised ventures that their wounds are self inflicted and not opposition inflicted. Better find another source to blame. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. would be a good place to start.

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

The hypothesis, supported by the computer models, is that increasing CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. The reality, supported by ground-based and satellite measurements, is that there isn't a correlated increase in global temperature and the hypothesis is therefore incorrect. That's the science.

The politics consists of anecdotal evidence, data manipulation, name-calling, personal attacks, refusals to debate, green energy scams, bogus "scientific" reports, and a pretense of consensus.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Darrel:

Thank you for your very thoughtful comments on the other bodies of the solar system. Very informative.

higv
Dietrich, ID

We have no control over the climate, had record cold winters recently too, anyone mention them? This is a classic example of someone using what we cannot control to control us. Easy to use environment over nonexistent problems to control people.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Anyone want to be how quickly and how loudly these very people who are denying climate change now will begin to complain when they start to really feel its effects?

They'll be wailing that the government has to do something to provide more water and more electricity to keep them cool and their lawns green.

They'll be yowling that the government failed to foresee the coming problem and stop it before it affected them.

Yup. That's the way it will work, just as it has with other national problems in the past.

anonymousPal
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Neanderthal

As the writer of this letter I want you to know that I have made big changes in my life because of global warming. My wife and I live in a small one bedroom apartment on the top story. We do not use AC unless it's 88 degrees or higher inside (which amounts 1-2 times a week). No I have not sold my car but I do bike to work 2x a week and my car gets 42mpg. I became a vegetarian=zero meat=less carbon/methane. We pay money each month to offset our carbon footprint. I have made major changes in my life.

Yet I personally have not felt a significant sting by global warming. But I read and educate myself. The poor of the world bear the brunt and one of my heroes said "even as you do unto the least of these..."

Demo Dave
Holladay, UT

The number of people who don't understand the difference between climate and weather is astounding.

@ No One Of Consequence: The US hasn't had the highest standard of living for a very long time. We're way down on the list. And an economic engine is nothing more that an excuse to pillage, plundered and destroy the earth's remaining resources. Do you really believe that oil companies have your welfare in mind? The American way of life is no longer sustainable. We have to change.

high school fan
Huntington, UT

Anonymous Pal. That is good that you have made changes in your life to follow what you believe, their us absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. Where we differ is you want others to follow your beliefs rather than our own as if your opinion carries more validity.
I'm sorry but I don't but it.
First it was cooling, then it was heating and now it is just change with CO2 being totally bad for you except the fact is CO2 is one of the three gases needed for life. When science is settled, we all will know exactly what to call it and how long we have got. We have missed so many deadlines without the doomsday prediction coming true, how would we ever know.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

Sorry to every global warming advocate, but the news is, we are, and have been, in a cooling period worldwide. That's why it was changed to climate "Change".

anonymousPal
Salt Lake City, UT

@scfan, @high school fan
I try to be a sincere seeker of truth and am truly curious where this global cooling data is coming from...please share.

And HS Fan of course I want others to adjust accordingly. Our individualistic society has gone away from the idea of sacrifice for the greater good of all but it is possible. Many of our grandparents' generation did it to combat Hitler in WW2 and they are honored as the "greatest generation" because of it. Many of the climate projections have far greater devastation than WW2 yet the trouble is there is no common enemy because in many ways each of us contribute and that is a tough pill to swallow. Much easier to believe the outlying cooling, business as usual outlook.

There were those who warned of the coming storm to Europe in the 30's...yet there was peace and prosperity no cause for alarm. Some fled to safety others did not. In this case there is no place to run.

AZKID
Mapleton, UT

The climate change debate is fueled by two things: 1) Government grant money is driving the so-called "consensus" and 2) Natural climate variations tied to solar variability.

The notion that mankind has any affect whatsoever on the actual climate is nothing but hubris. Did we cause the ice-age? The mini ice age of two centuries ago? The warming in between? No. I just returned from Alaska where I saw the results of retreating glaciers. Guess what? Those retreats are tied to the ending of the mini-ice age and despite the protestations of the scientists aping for grant money, having nothing to do with our paltry additions to the CO2 in the atmosphere. And on that point, higher temperatures cause more CO2 to be released from the ocean. Effect and cause, not cause and effect.

Go ahead, call me a denier or skeptic or whatever. I simply look at the available facts and call it how I see it. Wise and honest scientists do the same. Those who are trying to get grant money just go with the PC flow.

VST
Bountiful, UT

I have just one question for the writer of this opinion. You stated “The debate is over and the verdict is in. Global warming is happening and humans are the primary cause.”

Judging from all the comments posted above, I would say you are wrong.

What both sides of this debate continue to completely ignore is this: The real question regarding proof to the hypothesis of Anthropometric Global Warming (AGW) is this: How SENSITIVE is the earth's atmosphere to these increased CO2 forcings?

Compounding the answer to this question, there are also many other atmospheric forcings that can cause increases in average global temperatures. But it is difficult to isolate and measure the overall sensitivity of each forcing along with their respective interrelationships.

The answer to these questions is still under investigation by the REAL climate scientists. But until they have that answer, the hypothesis that AGW is the main cause of rising average temperatures on earth, it will remain just that – a hypothesis and not yet a proven scientific fact.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

SC Fan, the summers are hotter and drier and the winter storms are worse than ever. That is climate change. However, two digit below zero temps aside, the allover trend is toward the planet getting warmer. Yesterday it was 94 degrees in Seattle--the previous record for July 1 was 89.

I'm guessing that Utah isn't showing much evidence of this "cooling phase" right now.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

RedShirt, I doubt you can come up with ANYONE called a scientist who ever said that smoking was good. Did some say that it wasn't harmful? Probably--but everyone I ever heard who said that was--by some uncanny coincidence--himself a smoker. That's called whistling in the dark.

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

There are two primary datasets for air temperature: the ground-based data and the satellite data. The satellite data has far better coverage and uniformity, given that it samples most of the planet rather than just where land occurs. The satellite data shows no warming for the past 17 or 18 years. Dr. John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama - Huntsville is the keeper of the data. He is intimately acquainted with the data, and is not a global warming alarmist.

Data from ground stations is problematic. James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies are the keepers of the primary data set, and both are global warming alarmists. The problems with the ground-based data are numerous, including being affected by the urban heat island effect due to poor siting, and failure to cover more than 2/3 of the planet's surface. By far the biggest problem, however, is that Hansen and Schmidt have for years engaged in "adjustments" to the temperature record that have systematically made earlier years cooler and later years warmer. Personally, I don't believe their adjustments are scientifically valid.

to comment

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