Published: Wednesday, Aug. 6 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Another doomsdayer remanufacturing utterly useless facts that have nothing to do
with mankind changing the climate in any serious way. Can someone at Deseret
News please just take a break, and find out why so many intelligent people from
across the world are calling the bluff on this debunked theory? It's
preposterous to think that CO2 at all, let alone man-made CO2, can be the driver
of catastrophic global warming. The greenhouse effect certainly exists, but
runaway greenhouse warming is not possible. I love how everything "will"
be so bad, all in the future. That's all they have to do on--fearmongering
of what "will" happen. Shameless.
"The world will end unless you put me in charge of it."
A CARBON TAX is now responsible for destroying the economic prosperity of a
nation. With less than two months since the Gillard Government introduced the
carbon tax in Australia, businesses and consumers are beginning to feel the pain
of increased costs that are directly associated to the carbon tax. Prices of
nearly everything are inflating, especially food prices. Everything rabid
environmentalist promised about the wonderful benefits of implementing a carbon
tax is turning out to be totally false! Aussies will soon be forced to repeal
their carbon taxes to avoid at total collapse of their entire economy.Will
we learn from other's experiences or will we doom ourselves to repeat their
No no no... You don't you get it? The more businesses we can destroy...
the better it is for the economy!It would be better if EVERYBODY
worked for the Government. Because we ALL know the Government creates jobs...
For those who continue to deny the reality and risks of climate change, like
some who have commented on this excellent op-ed, it's time to take off the
blinders. It's not only 97% of climate scientists and every professional
scientific organization in America that recognizes that human-caused climate
change as happening and as a significant risk, it's business leaders
throughout that world. Organizations that have taken a stand on the risks of
climate change include the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the
reinsurance company Munich Re, every U.S. property and casualty company, the
U.S. military (see it's Quadrennial Review). There is also an organization
called BICEP, Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, that supports
policies to address climate change, and includes Nike, eBay, the Outdoor
Industry Association, and many others. I could go on, but hopefully you get the
The author made the mistake of assuming that the EPA and other global warming
advocates actually care about the environment and about the well-being of people
in general. Their whole agenda is about power (political not energy) and they
want to wield as much of it as possible so that they can do "what is best
for us" which usually entails enriching themselves and their friends at our
@JoeCapitalist2 – “Their whole agenda is about power (political not
energy)…”You touch on the entire reason this has become
a political issue (when it should be a purely scientific one) and why so many
have adopted the dogmatism of denial as a political strategy.This
approach may work in the short term, but history (including your children and
grandchildren) is going to judge the denier dittoheads quite harshly (right up
there with the Catholic Church viz-a-viz Galileo, Creationism, and slave
holders). So, rather than continue with all the denier nonsense,
why not focus your energies on market friendly approaches to mitigation (e.g.,
cap & trade or a revenue neutral carbon tax)?
@ David Folland, Ah, yes, the "97% agree" tactic. That was
based on one very flawed study, yes one, by Peter Doran of the University of
Chicago. They got to the "97% agree" statement by going back post-hoc
(because they didn't like the original 80% who agreed) and cherry picked
what they wanted to get to the comfortable "97% agree" (100% agreeing
would be too unbelievable to the general public). That doesn't
even speak to the actual raw data coming in. Did you know that catastrophic
global warming exists only in scenarios's predicted by computer models? Did
you know that we've had about 17 years to test the validity of those models
with actual ambient air temperature and that the real temperature data reveal a
wildly divergent result from what the computers predicted? The earth is simply
not nearly as sensitive to CO2 as the vast majority of climate scientists
predicted. Read the children's book, "The Emporer's
New Clothes" to discover a profound lesson on the psychological phenomena of
"Groupthink". It's what led to the downfall of Rome, the rise of
the Third Reich, Phrenology, and many, many other outrageous ideas. It is also
happening today in American acedamia.
This op-ed is weak. So we should let the EPA control our lives?Whatever the EPA is for! Im against!Whatever big coal and oil
companies are for, I'm for too!Coal and oil are truly
altruistic. They don't care about profit, all they care about is
what's best for us. Environmental people are weak commies looking to
control our lives.
Hey 2 bits -"The more businesses we can destroy... the better it
is for the economy!"Realists disagree.We know that a
clean energy economy can employ a LOT of people.Not only that, but
once a clean energy infrastructure is in place, the price of energy will
decrease.Ever heard of supply and demand? If there's a large
supply of clean energy, the price for energy overall will drop.And
NOTHING stimulates the economy like cheap energy. Just think of how much money
from your paycheck goes toward paying for energy. As far as your concerned, that
money is pumped into a hole in the ground left by the removal of fossil fuels.
Don't you have better things to do with your money?
When a businessman says something is "good for business, good for
economy" he has the assumption that the "economy" includes
consumers, workers and ordinary people and their good is tied to the business
good. It probably stems from the business notion that ordinary people are just
cattle provided by the world for the benefit of business. It ain't
Hey ShowLodoc -“That was based on one very flawed study, yes
one, by Peter Doran of the University of Chicago. They got to the "97%
agree" statement by going back post-hoc”WRONGYour comment is based on misinformation circulating on the internet via Right
Wing La La Land.Lying Right Wing websites say that, but reality and
Politifact disagree. Check out the Politifact article entitled “Do
scientists disagree about global warming?”Right Wingers are
still in denial, but that doesn’t change the facts.Face the
Ultra Bob,Re "he has the assumption that the "economy"
includes consumers, workers and ordinary people"....What
"Economy" DOESN'T include consumers and workers???Without consumers and workers... you HAVE NO Economy!
@showlowdoc – “Did you know that we've had about 17 years to
test the validity of those models…”Two points –
1st, in any scientific discipline it is always the predictive models
that are the last piece of the puzzle to fill in our knowledge (see medicine
& economics as tow prime examples of this fact). The causal fact that excess
CO2 (above the natural carbon cycle – google it) causes warming (and
whatever other disruptions that may entail) is undisputed. If you doubt this I
would suggest a rudimentary study of the planet Venus.2nd, we are
continuing to warm however it is currently happening mostly in the oceans (which
are also acidifying at alarming rates). Do you want to guess when this overflow
heat/carbon trapping capacity of the oceans will be exhausted, not to mention
how the oceans will be damaged in the processed? The fact that
children’s books are informative on this issue for you is telling…
What climate change? Nothing happening today is unprecedented.They're tilting at windmills!
For those who thing addressing climate change is bad for business, you are like
those who resisted computers because it would be bad for the typewriter
industry. It's new economic activity and investment, folks!
As new energy sources become available and become more affordable, businesses
will adopt them. As for punishing them for being in business TODAY, and using
the energy sources that are available TODAY... I don't know about that. When energy from wind is more economical and more reliable than the
alternative... who would NOT use it? Why spend MORE than you need to for
energy when you are competing with companies that are using the
newer/cheaper/renewable energy sources?As for forcing them to use
more expensive... less reliable energy sources... that probably won't work.
They can't shutdown production just because the sun isn't shining or
the wind isn't blowing. They will need something more reliable...
Tyler, I'll try to take it easy on you...Nobody disputes that
CO2 causes warming to a certain level. The main question is how sensitive is the
feedback mechanism to CO2? Well, a bunch of climatologists predicted what would
happen based on a very sensitive feedback process. After 17 years of real time
data, they have been proven to have less than a 3% chance of being correct.
Would you bank on a 3% chance? I wouldn't. Let's go back
and evaluate the first, second, third and fourth assessments of the IPCC. All
the models used that so breathlessly hyped an average increase of >3C were
predicting changes in ambient air, NOT THE DEEP OCEAN. Now that those models
have completetly failed, someone came up with the idea that "all the heat is
now in the ocean" so they can keep the scare-mongering up. Shameless. Ah, the Venus rebuttal. I'm sure the atmospheric pressure being 90
times the earth's pressure has nothing to do with surface temperatures
being so much hotter. Next time I cook dinner, I'll just try pumping a lot
of CO2 in my oven instead of turning on the electric. A brilliant idea!
GaryO: “Hey ShowLodoc -That was based on one very flawed
study, yes one, by Peter Doran of the University of Chicago. They got to the
"97% agree" statement by going back post-hoc”WRONG Your comment is based on misinformation circulating on the internet via Right
Wing La La Land.”No Gary, you are the misinformed one. If you
had bothered to read the survey to which showlowdoc referred (Doran/Zimmerman
2009), you would have found these details: 10,257 scientists were invited to
participate in the survey. 3,146 responded. Of those responding only 79 were
“chosen” for the final result. 77 answered “yes” to two
questions that the majority of us who are skeptical of doom and gloom climate
change would likely answer “yes” to. Presto "97%
consensus".Mountanman: Australia repealed their destructive
carbon tax this year in mid July. Canada is rolling back its “green
engery” efforts. Spain and Japan are also seeing the light. The alarmist
scam is running its course, leaving taxpayers holding the bag.
Gary OI looked at your reference--It refers to two studies, one was
the one I referred to (the Eos study), the other by the National Academy of
Sciences, which in fact, never did a survey of practicing climatologists. In
fact, they referred BACK to the EOS study for that. I'll
forgive your naivete.To everyone else interested in the truth,
please just Google "climate models v. reality". There's some good
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments