@LovelyDeseretThe satellite temperature record from UAH (University
of Alabama - Birmingham) is much more stable and reliable, in that it
doesn't get adjusted every couple of weeks. The mistake the guys made who
adjust the GISS ground-based record is we know what the raw readings are. If you
subtract the raw readings from official adjusted numbers, guess what you get?
Global warming.I don't know the motive behind the adjustments.
Some call it homogenization. But it seems like a mistake to homogenize the
readings from pristine stations with the readings from stations afflicted by
urban heat island effect, which is what has been done. A more accurate approach
would have been to use the readings from pristine stations to remove the urban
heat island effect from other stations. If that had been done, we wouldn't
be having this conversation right now.
Scientists also said that July 2012 was the hottest month on record but they
recently and quietly changed it back to July 1936 as the hottest month on
record. My point being that when it comes to so called "global warming",
scientific facts change.
Just as the "greatest generation" did, when the need finally became
apparent to stop Hitler, we too will rise up but it is not apparent yet. While
one may suspect that something is happening, there is no proof of what that is
and is it good or bad.Some on both sides of the issue spend way to much
time trying to make converts of either the other side or the totally uninformed
. Others try and do make lots of money off the issue and quite often their
mouths and actions don't coincide.
To RedShirt:Like I said, any "scientist" or doctor who EVER
said that smoking was not harmful was himself a smoker.Do you have
any data that is LESS than 90 years old?
Warming researchers got caught in 2009 fudging the data in their attempt to keep
their grant funders happy. The earth hasn't warmed for 17 years. So how
is the debate settled? In the 1970's scientists believed we were headed
for an ice age.My opinion? The CO2 we are producing is what is
keeping us from this ice age.
To "Laura Bilington" here are a couple of references to scientific
papers from the 1920's that said that smoking was not harmful. Werner C.
A., "The Triumph of the Cigarette," and W. M. Johnson, "The Effects
of Tobacco Smoking".Plus they got over 20,000 doctors that were
part of the AMA to say that smoking was ok.You may not believe them
or like them, but that is what was going on.
So...The Antarctic sea ice is expanding and none of the calamities predicted by
the global warming cabal have come true and yet they still have the energy to
try and spin any situation their way. The science is not settled. That is the
ignorant lay man's way of trying to convince his neighbor to quit driving
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.
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.
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
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.
@scfan, @high school fanI 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.
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
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.
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.
@ NeanderthalAs 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..."
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
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
@Darrel:Thank you for your very thoughtful comments on the other
bodies of the solar system. Very informative.
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.
FreedomFighter41Provo, UTThat 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.
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
...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.
@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.
@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.
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
@RedShirtI mistakenly called Triton a moon of Saturn, not Uranus.
@RedShirtVery interesting, thank you for the tips. I did some
research:Mars has a very thin atmosphere, and as such it is much
more susceptible to weather change than Earth. The idea that Mars is warming is
from two pictures taken 22 years apart of the polar caps. Like Earth, Mars has
weather, and no trend can be shown from two photos 22 years apart.Pluto is very hard to show much data. We have only know about its existence
for only a third of one of its orbits. Its orbit is highly eccentric, and will
have great fluctuations in temperature. We have never sent a spacecraft there
either. The first is due to arrive next year, so it is difficult to record ANY
change in temperature.From what I understand, Jupiter's rise is
based solely on computer models with no increase detected directly.Triton, couldn't really find anything on. But with Saturn having orbits
and seasons like Earth, I would expect Triton to have changes in temperature as
it closer and further from the Sun. Coming out of the sunspot
cycle, I would expect some warming to happen throughout the solar system.
To "Darrel" if you really like astronomy so much, here is something to
think about.According to NASA there are other bodies in the solar
system that have been warming at the same time the earth has been warming.Mars has been experiencing global warming, along with the moon Triton,
Pluto, and Jupiter. How can those planets be warming at the same time Earth is
if man-made CO2 is the driver?
To "The Real Maverick" since when was science settled by a vote?Scientists once told us that Margarine was good. They once said smoking
was good. They once said that eugenics was a great idea. Eggs were bad, then
good, then bad again, and are now good. Scientists had a consensus that no
aircraft could fly faster than the speed of sound.Luckily those of
us that understand science know that it is a matter of getting good data and
developing a mathematical model to explain the observations. We don't have
good data, nor do we have a valid model. NASA has been caught several times
adjusting the data to make temperatures appear higher. The NOAA has shown us
that the models are wrong because the models said that 15 years or more without
warming was impossible, yet we are now on year 17 with no warming. All of the
data is built on interpolated data prior to 1979, so even the data is not
@ Micawber: a·larm·ist [ ə láarmist ]1.somebody
spreading fear: somebody who spreads unnecessary fear or warnings of danger.2.somebody easily scared: somebody who becomes afraid easily. In
my opinion the term fits very well. Others disagree, obviously.If
the earth continues to cool due to reduction of solar activity as forecasted, we
will then know it wasn't C02 after all, right? Thus those who were wrong
were alarmists, right? Have a great day!
@Mountanman,I think you paint with too broad a brush. When you say
"they were so alarmed about" I don't know what you mean. Is
everyone who believes in anthropogenic climate change alarmed about it, in your
opinion, and therefore an alarmist? The way you use the word alarmist sounds
derogatory, but perhaps you don't mean it to. Can you explain, please?
@MountanmanI must admit that I am no expert in Solar activity,
although astronomy has always been a strong, strong passion of mine.That being said, sunspots are substantially cooler than other areas of the
Sun. Wouldn't less sunspots = hotter sun = hotter Earth?I
could be wrong on that case, I would be the first to admit it if I am shown
otherwise, but your logic seems a little...awkward at face value.
The point is NOAA had manipulated the data for a cause. Oh yea that's
right the Koch brothers bought the NOAA it couldn't be true.
@Mountanman"It was solar activity all along, not C02!"The current weakest solar cycle in a century is paired with a pause in warming
that has stuck at warmest decade in modern record levels. So what it looks more
like is that a negative natural effect (the weak solar cycle) is being paired
with a positive effect (AGW) and that's why we have this 15 year pause
going on. If it were solar activity all along we'd have peaked in
temperatures in the 70s and have declined somewhat since then since that's
what solar irradiance has been doing. Instead we rose dramatically for 20 more
years (1980-2000) and have paused at those elevated levels at the end of the
@No One Of Consequence – “When the… efforts to end global
warming have instead destroyed the economic engine…”Except these debates have nothing to do with each other. Whether climate
change is happening is a (largely settled) scientific debate. What to do about
it is a political debate.I can respect those who follow the science
in the first case, even while we disagree politically on how to address it in
the second. What I have no respect for are those who disparage the
science as an expedient means of ignoring the political, and I have yet to come
across an intellectually honest skeptic.[See Dr. David Brin’s
paper on how to tell the difference]Instead (as fully on display on
this forum every time a climate change article is published) we have people who
have made up their minds already (for political reasons – i.e.,
‘cause Rush said so) and then lie, distort, or cherry pick the facts to
support their view.That they do this without ever considering that
scientists have already asked and answered their objections should be a source
of much embarrassment… but rarely is.
The debate is over! The data is in! NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS and NPR all think
BHO is the best president ever and that is why they worship him. After all
unemployment improved a few months ago. Never mind all the lies, never mind his
inept handling of foreign affairs and terrorism. Never mind his inability to
create policy that improves the economy. The list goes on and on. Oh
sorry, I picked up on the wrong topic. Listed the right advocates for he wrong
agenda. Funny how "proof" and evidence works! I will
agree with the letter writer on one thing. If you honestly believes in this
cause, then feel free to promote promote your agenda, and start doing all the
items on your list. Those are things that you believe will make a difference,
and it doesn't impose your beliefs on me. This is exactly what all greenies
should be doing. Put their actions where their mouth is. Lead by example, not by
restriction of freedom.
I find it interesting that while the Arctic Ice Pack is shrinking, though it
hasn't disappeared as was predicted. The Antarctic Ice is at record levels.
All time record levels. This probably has more to do with shifting ocean
currents than any perceived CO2 rise. I have no doubt that the climate is
changing. It always does. 20 years from now scientists will look back and wonder
how foolish we were to think that higher CO2 levels had any cause other than to
feed the plants. Too many confuse AGCC with pollution, ie. dirty water
and particulates in the air. Changes in the magnetics, solar flares and
wind, ocean currents and wind currents have much more to do with our climate
than the alarmists want to acknowlege.
@jsfCenterville, UTOh snap. From the NOAA website -- "Global Summary Information - May 2014 May global temperature
reaches record high."...but of course, you mention the
"s-e-c-r-e-t" corrected data, from what? The Drudge Report?
TheInsider? Some other "Conspiracy Theory" website? A couple
other commentors here mentioned the political spin to this.I
concurWhy is it these very same 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.???
@jsf" NOAA just quietly corrected data, 1936 was the hottest July on
record not 2012."For the US (that was the Dust Bowl), not
globally. "2013, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square
kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center
Web site. "2013 was still 7th lowest ice extent on record (and
3rd or 4th lowest for volume). You got the Antarctic sea ice one
right though that's largely a result of increased wind stress rather than
any cooling. "45 days after AGW alarmist stated the ice sheet
was collapsing in size."That's land ice, and it is
collapsing in size.@2bits"It could have been only 2 days
this month"There were 19 above average days in June. Maybe
Eubank was talking about average number of 100+ degree days in June or July
(that might be a 2 type number, so far we've had 0 and we're
forecasted to maybe get one of those on Thursday so that might be relevant).
I would like someone to explain this: If Al Gore and the other proponents of
man-made global warming actually believe what they say, why do they fly in
private jets and use high energy use vehicles like SUVs and large sedans? If
they truly believe in man caused global warming, why would they live in large
houses with high energy bills?Al Gore's House in Tennessee uses more
energy in 1-month than the average American home in 1-year. Plus the amount of
resources to build his mansion. If he really believed in man caused global
warming would he live like that?Could it be many of these advocates
are making tons of money off their crusades? Al Gore made a lot of money off of
selling Carbon offsets as well as other anti-carbon concerns. This same Al Gore
made millions selling his TV network to Qatar which is essentially big oil,
while saying there is no such thing as ethical oil, unless he can make millions
from them.By some estimates, Al Gore's environmental and
liberal advocacy has made him richer than Mitt Romney. Seems a large financial
incentive to push the ideology.
Here is why the earth is now cooling, not warming. The number of sunspots
declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the
previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed.
NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,“Indeed, the
sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar
Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50
years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening
trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William
Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar
Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any
sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology
and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”It was
solar activity all along, not C02!
Oklahoma went from having 2 earthquakes per year to now 230.What
changed? Fracking. Why are we allowing this type of
destruction? Simple, greed.In the 1930s, greed led to the Dust Bowl.
Many people denied that the farmers had anything to do with the Dust Bowl. They
believed it just... Happened! Thankfully, progressives embraced
science, found that we were definitely the cause, and found scientific
solutions. Had conservatives had their way, the midwest would still be buried in
dirt. Likewise, it's way past time to give global warming
deniers any attention. Time to move on with or without them. Fracking should be illegal, expanded drilling should be stopped, and we should
all be investing into green technology. Sorry repubs, but you lost
@Frozen Fractals,It could have been only 2 days this month (I thought I
heard this year). I wasn't fully listening at the time but thought that
was an interesting factoid. If it was just for the month of June... then not
really all that interesting. The way Eubank was acting I thought it was a big
deal.========@Darrel,It has shifted from a
scientific debate to a political debate. I'm not sure why. IMO there are
two separate but related issues. The scientific angle, and the political
angle.Even if it's 100% scientifically proven fact... There
would still be a political angle to be concerned about. I don't want us
turning our liberty over to some group of global elites who determine what we
can/can't do in America, or in Utah.People have been trying to
do that for a long time using various different excuses for why they think
it's better for us to give up local control and let some global governance
group make decisions for us (and promise there would be absolutely no corruption
involved).It would be the FIRST Government with no corruption.
Oh snap. NOAA just quietly corrected data, 1936 was the hottest July on record
not 2012.Oh snap. 2013, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square
kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center
Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in
2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.
2014 The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, which, has been steadily
increasing throughout the period of satellite measurement that began in 1979,
has hit a new all-time record high for area coverage.The new record
anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost
continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time
by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s The Cryosphere Today
early Sunday morning.45 days after AGW alarmist stated the ice sheet
was collapsing in size.The science is settled?
At this point, it feels like some of you are just being stubborn for the fact of
just being stubborn. I can only imagine that some of you would have felt right
at home denying the world is round and that it revolved around the sun. There literally isn't any reason why Germany should be producing 3x
as much solar energy as we are. There's no excuse for China (of all
countries) to be double what we invest into green technology. Besides, it makes economic sense too. Develop this technology first, then sell
it to the world. Why stay addicted to dirty fuel?
Question for everyone... on what studies do you base your opinion?It
is interesting a scientific topic is largely political. That were you stand on
abortion or the Iraq war can be used to determine what you believe about climate
change.Because it is a scientific question, rather than
political...on what studies do you base your opinion?
@lost in DC"June has been abnormally cool. I guess that is the result
of "man-caused" global warming?"At SLC it was .25F below
average on the month (-.5F on highs, tied on lows). You want to pick one
location on the planet with near-average temperatures, after the warmest April
and May globally on record... and question climate change with it?@2bits" I heard on KSL news lasts night that this year we have had 2
days that were "above average" temperature."That's
incorrect. SLC had a stretch from Feb 7 to March 10 where every single day was
above average. 19 of 30 June days were above average (the month was .25F below
average because some of those 11 below average days were way way below average,
most notably the 17th which was 53/43 when average is 84/57). February was 7
degrees above average, March was 5 degrees above average, June is the only month
this year we've been below average.
@ Mike Richards & MontanmanSome are still debating the world is flat
and the sun orbits the Earth. Problem is those groups don't have the Koch
Brothers deep pockets to fund a politcally based science project.
Gotta love it when "good" Latter-Day Saints are so anti-Environment and
Anti-Science, While the LDS Church devotes and entire web-page on
progressive Environmentalism, Conservationism and Stewardship of the Earth [not
ownership] and her resources. And owns and operates a world reknown
University [which teaches Scientific theories such as Global Warming, Evolution,
Marxism, and Sociology.]
@ No one of consequenceI sure hope we are all wrong but
unfortunately at this point there is no reason to believe that. SO if we go
through many efforts as individuals and a society to green the environment,
create energy independence, clean the ugly two month Salt Lake valley inversion,
develop cheaper energy, release the stranglehold of corporate influence in DC
and THEN we find out the 3% of scientists were correct OF COURSE we will reopen
When the dust settles after efforts to end global warming have instead destroyed
the economic engine that has given us the highest standard of living in history,
will the global warming believers be willing to reopen the debate?Ain't over till it's over.
@Twin Lights – “The poor oil companies can't possibly compete
to get their message out.”Nice Jon Stewart-like
observation.Whenever I hear about the so-called corrupting influence
grant money has on scientists as compared to the corrupting influence of the
world’s richest industry – and one that has found a TV network
willing to wrap its propaganda in the American flag (not surprising given this
TV Network’s largest shareholders) - I’m reminded of the Parable of
the Mote (or speck) and the Beam.
Mike Richards -"The debate is over?"Well, yes it
is.Sure, we will always here distant yapping, but all serious debate
is over."The debate is over and the verdict is in. Global
warming is happening and humans are the primary cause."
I am aware of climate. I am also aware of our local weather. That is what I
experience first-hand. I don't pretend that it constitutes the whole of
global climate, but it's a small part. And a relevant local part.Speaking of being aware of climate (and I would add, being aware of the
Weather)... I heard on KSL news lasts night that this year we have had 2 days
that were "above average" temperature.I'm not
suggesting that means it's not hotter elsewhere, or in other years. But
it IS saying it's not hotter here... THIS year.I know some will
just blow this off. But I want them to think about something. IF this weather
fact reported on KSL had been the other way (that all but 2 days were ABOVE
average temperature)... I suspect you would have seen that as significant. So
when it's equally extreme in the other direction.. why is it NOT
significant???Only 2 days warmer than average so far this year, and
the year is more than half over... That seems significant. Local... but
significant.Doesn't disprove Global Warming... but it's a
fact to be aware of.
Some of the things suggested have always made sense: reduce, reuse, recycle,
etc. but I reject the basis given. June has been abnormally cool. I guess that
is the result of "man-caused" global warming?
I'm constantly amazed at the determination of "conservatives" to
refuse to conserve anything. Ongoing irony.
But but but... The Koch bros and their lawyers who denied that tabacco smoke was
unhealthy say that global warming is just a hoax for der guvmint to control
me!@ Mike Richards99 percent of scientists believe that
global warming is happening and we are the #1 cause. You may use my dictionary
to look up what "majority" means since you obviously don't.Lastly, why not clean up this planet? The Lord placed us in charge of
it. He trusts us to take care of it. Would a father entrust his car out to his
son and be happy if the son didn't take care of it? So why do some of you
believe that it's okay to trash the planet which The Lord gave us?
Won't his judgements come down on us? What will our excuse be? "But but
but, we wanted more money"?Sorry repubs, this debate is over.
The rest of us have moved on.
Those who claim the majority of scientists don't know for a fact that our
global climate is changing are spreading disinformation. And they know it.Sad that fact is debatable. Sadder still for our grandchildren.
Micawber. Experience isn't science but it is still knowledge. We are not
experiencing any of the catastrophes some people promised. Much of the
"science" that has been touted has been show to be manipulated and
massaged. In fact, we are experiencing the opposite of nearly everything they
were so alarmed about-that makes them alarmists, doesn't it? That's
The debate is over? When did that happen? Can government "close" a
debate when MOST scientists have not signed on? When MOST scientists want to
see better methods and cleaner data? Just because Al Gore says that the debate
is over does not mean that it is over. He cares so little about the climate
that he jets around the world in his polluting private jets without regard to
the damage that he is doing. All he cares about is the big paychecks and the
popular acclaim. If he were serious and if those who tell us that global
warming is real were serious, they would teleconference instead of jetting of to
conferences where they wring their hands and tell us unless the governments tax
us to death that we will die from heat exhaustion. (By the way, my furnace
kicked on last night on the 1st of July. It was set to come on at 57 degrees
Mountanman:In your opinion, is anyone who believes in climate change
an alarmist? Do you call someone an alarmist because you think it makes your
position more persuasive? (In my opinion it does not. It just makes you seem
dogmatic.) If not, why do you do it?
@ Mountanman, what a fiction you spin.... Perhaps you could share the source of
your assertion that global temps are cooling. This should be fun.
Why are Utahns so AGAINST facts? Man is responsible for global warming.
Sorry Global Warming Alarmist– Climate change itself is already in the
process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of
fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because
natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global
temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global
temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.
No, no, no. It was a nice cool (insert month here) in (insert obscure place
here). So that can't possibly be true.And there don't
forget the global conspiracy to promote man-made climate change by the nascent
green energy companies. The poor oil companies can't possibly compete to
get their message out.