Comments about ‘Letter: Climate doubts’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, July 12 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Friday, July 11 2014 8:12 p.m. MDT

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

Of course there will be a flurry of rebuttal, and some will no doubt cite East Anglia University as if that decided the matter.

From Environment Canada: The fitted linear trend indicates that winter temperatures averaged across the nation have warmed by 3.0°C over the past 67 years (a lot!). The data are what they are.

Now if we were to restrict ourselves to the last 10 years, for example, we would likely get a downward sloping trend line, hence claims that the climate is cooling over the last 10 years, but what of the longer trend?

Climate science involves a lot of statistics, and sophistication with statistical technique. It is as difficult as biostatistics and epidemiology. My experience is that climate change deniers do not pay enough attention to proper statistical technique.

Let the controversy rage.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

United States industries have a long and shameful history of producing products hazardous to the American populous.

The list includes lead in paint in gasoline and paint, asbestos insulation, cigarettes, cars without safety belts, acid rain from coal burning etc. etc.

Industry tries to counter these threats with well funded denial based on bogus "science", and threats of economic catastrophe, but eventually the facts play out and the problems are taken care of through responsible legislation.

Human caused climate change is following the same pattern.

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

Perhaps the letter writer should check the nature of those who are promoting global warming alarmism. Do they have a history of hiding data and methods? Are they willing to debate the issue? Do their websites allow free discussion? Do they try to find ways to "hide the decline" and dodge FOIA requests? Do they alter their data in a way that enhances claims of warming? Do they invent statistical methods that create warming trends from random data? Have any of them seen a significant increase in personal wealth as a result of their alarmism?

He might also want to fact check the 97% number. The most recent version of that number comes from a survey of scientific papers in which 97% of the papers did not explicitly oppose AGW. In fact, only 0.5% of the papers take an explicit position supporting AGW. The same logic that is used for the 97% number suggests that it would be just as accurate to say that 99.5% of climate scientists DON'T agree with AGW. In reality, 0.5% of the papers agree and 3% disagree, while the others take no position. The debate is far from over.

ordinaryfolks
seattle, WA

Sadly, some scientists have allowed their research to become political. Science is not politics. Science is a demonstrable way of ferreting out truth. Politics is a way to convince others of your point of view, and increasingly plays fast and loose with truth.

Britain has recently enacted a rule that says its "equal time" provisions (that allow non-scientific and unproven views air time on a par with known science and verifiable facts) be voided for silly nonsense. The effect of this action is to limit the time of creationists on television, climate deniers as well. There is no public good to be associated with these ideas.

Our country will never enact such a rule for a variety of reasons. One is the freedom of speech. Any fool can shout from the mountaintops that the earth is flat, and it is perfectly legal. Our American problem with this right is that we have a lot of other fools who believe the shouter that the earth is indeed flat. Our burden and our politics.

higv
Dietrich, ID

Oh the irony and hypocrisy of this letter, you are never supposed to doubt man made climate change, like we can control the weather anyway. Just a way to control us and take away our prosperity. If people were this hysterical before would be living in horse and buggy days.

LOU Montana
Pueblo, CO

David, no one cares about your cause! UNTIL! It effects their personal world. When all the deer and elk die the hunters will care. When all the fish die the fishermen will care. When drinking water becomes a real commodity people will begin to care. When all these things happen the finger pointing will begin and the blame will be placed on those Liberals.

It is sad that people will not wake up till it is to late.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Look at the economics.

When the federal government was concluding and beginning to assertively declare that smoking is bad for human beings, there were highly educated "experts" who took opposite opinions, publically. Of course, they worked for the tobacco companies.

Today most of the scientists in the "climate change" camp are funded by government, which implies they have an interest in proclaiming climate change, to keep the government grant money coming. Except that with Sequestration, grant funding has been cut.

If these scientists were looking out for their own individual economic interests, they would switch sides in droves, and be paid handsomely by the oil companies.

That's not happening. These scientists are hanging on to a dwindling economic payout, for themselves. Either they're not very bright, or they're telling the truth.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

BIG Oil is just using the same thing BIG Tobacco did 50 years ago.

They are using an old Defense Lawyer tactic --
Do not "dis-prove" reality, only instill doubt.

Then they single out just one jury member,
the one with the weakest mind, and emotion driven over logic.

That way, a 100% verdict can never be reached.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

"When I check out a story that raises doubt about human-caused climate change, I consistently find the source tied to an ideologically driven organization focused on spreading doubt on the reality of what is happening."

Really?

Then why didn't you note that the "97% of scientists believe in man made global warming" is an easily debinked figure that comes from a biased source?

Climate change exists (as it always has), but man made climate hysteria is the bigger problem

chilly
Salt Lake City, UT

There's a new poll, just out, that alarmists can use freely to justify curtailing the use of fossil fuel.

600 delegates at the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Climate Change Conference were asked if humans have influenced the climate. Remember, these are the "deniers" to whom Folland's letter refers. 100% of them agreed that Man has some effect on climate!

Alarmists everywhere can now stop using the phony 97% figure and now say: "One hundred percent of climate change deniers believe that humans change climate".

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

It seems like the common thing to mention lately is that NOAA adjustment that put July 1936 ahead of 2012. This was a result of a change in NOAAs dataset that was used.

For more information (this took me forever to find since putting in things like "NOAA explains 2012 1936 year change" kept only getting AGW skeptic sites railing against NOAA) one should look at NOAA's March 12th article "Transitioning to a Gridded Climate Divisional Dataset". So those claims that NOAA did this quietly are worthless, it's not NOAAs fault that the things they post on their site don't always get national coverage by the media.

If you start playing with the visualization tools there you'd find that the new dataset they're using tends to increase the winter trend in temperatures, decrease the summer trend (there's the July thing), and the overall annual trend is increased by what I think is a statistically insignificant margin (so the idea that NOAA made a hidden adjustment because they didn't want to show cooling is incorrect too). 2012 remains the warmest year on record for the contiguous U.S.

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihuahua, 00

A 49 degree day in the month of June for Salt Lake. We are just burning alive.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

Well said Marxists. Though, I'm not sure a "controversy" exists at all. Nearly the entire global population, scientists, climatologists, etc... all have reviewed the data and agree. The only group not on board is, predictably, American conservatives - which constitute a very small percentage of the global community. These are the same people that opposed or currently oppose freeing the slaves, interracial marriage, women's rights, worker's rights, and SSM, among so many other things.

So, at what point do we simply admit that the only people who question anthropogenic climate change are the people who have historically been wrong on every major issue since our Nation's inception? At what point do we tell them openly that their position literally has no merit and move forward without them?

At this point, every day that we lag in taking proactive measures imperils us all so we need to begin to treat the opinions of naysayers appropriately by literally excluding them from the discussion. Their opinions have no merit and thus they should no be afforded a seat at the table to find a solution.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

One thing about science is that it is always learning additional factors previously undiscovered. This is what is happening with climate science. I hope the 97% are overreacting but unfortunately you can't guarantee it. "Preparation precedes power". I am afraid we will soon be forced to pull our heads out, of the sand.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

The vast petrochemical industry is feeding enormous amounts of misinformation to the public on this issue. Of course, there's a lot of money at stake. Who can make a buck off free solar energy?

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

@Pops
"In fact, only 0.5% of the papers take an explicit position supporting AGW. "

For most papers in the field a statement supporting or opposing AGW to be irrelevant to the subject of the paper at hand. It would be faulty to say 99.5% of papers oppose AGW because the study didn't say 97% of papers support AGW, just that 97% of papers that took a position supported AGW (so it's not meant to be viewed as 97% of all papers).

" In reality, 0.5% of the papers agree and 3% disagree"

That's incorrect, since the 3% disagree is pulled from 97-3 so you're comparing
1. the percentage of all papers that say AGW is occurring (.5%) with
2. the percentage of papers, that take a position, that say AGW isn't occurring (3%).

It should be either percentage of all papers for both, or percentage of papers that take a position for both, not a mix of the two.

Swiss
Price, Utah

We almost have agreement on what caused the "little ice age" that destroyed the Norse Settlements in Greenland and probable prevented them from gaining a lasting foothold in Vinland. A volcanic eruption in Southeast Asia on the ring of fire. Now we are told that the current cold snap in the Midwest is caused because of the hurricane that hit Japan a few days ago. We cant control the weather. But now the climatologists can predict the climate and tell us how to change it years into the future.
Climate has always changed. Hubris is thinking mankind can now predict it let alone control it.
Start watching "when weather changed the world" on the weather channel. It is more productive than debating Anthropogenic Climate Change.

let's roll
LEHI, UT

Eat Butter is the cover story of a recent edition of Time magazine. Turns out all the studies re the evils of fat and the scientific consensus regarding the food pyramid were all wrong. Funny, I thought all that stuff was settled science long ago. Guess some will have to recalibrate and adapt.

Makes you wonder what they'll be saying about climate science in 50 years.

I'm an advocate of moderation in all things and being a thoughtful steward of the environment.

I think you can take that approach without having to buy in to all of the doomsday scenarios from mathematical models that are heavy on assumptions that project current behavior 50 or more years into the future which ignores innovation (I suspect little that we do today is identical to what was done 50 years ago).

If in 50 years Time Magazine says climate science was all wrong, it won't change my approach at all. I don't need science to convince me to be a thoughtful steward.

BTW, I'll continue to eat butter in moderation as I've always done,

higv
Dietrich, ID

@liberal larry Do your drive a car? Live in a home with heating and Air Conditioning? You obviously use a computer and use electricity, eat food taken care of by Tractors and Combines with fuel. If so it is a bit hypocritical to complain about what the US does when our country feeds the world with it's technology and we live longer than we used too.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Tons of carbon a second does affect the environment. Next inversion lets all light a bon fire to prove it is false or invite the coal rollers to all drive down State street.

to comment

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