Who believes in climate change? Many studies point that global warming is legitimate

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Fred Bastiat Kaysville, UT
    April 29, 2012 6:45 p.m.

    The problem comes from a lack of trust of scientists. Frankly Scientists aren't helping much. They often portray humanity as the enemy of the planet. Go and watch Bill Nye's "Eye of Nye" show on Population. He actually praises China's one child policy and makes it sound like having less human beings on the planet is a good thing. That viewpoint is not a small one within academic circles. Many of the supposed solutions to Climate Change would be economic suicide and would cause a large amount of human suffering. Until scientists start thinking more compassionately they won't receive more support from skeptics.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 29, 2012 6:38 p.m.

    Volcanoes, and natural occurring forest fires have been polluting the air for thousands of years.

    Al Gore got a "D" for science in high school and failed it in college. Not a good source for forming an opinion. Man has done much to clean up the planet.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 29, 2012 11:00 a.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    I find more common sense with Rush, Beck, and Hannity than you. Global warming sounds serious, but it doesn't make it true. The earth is cleaner today than a hundred years ago. Do your homework!

    It's amazing how these people proclaiming global warming, are big time fossil fuel burners. I don't see them living in a cave.

  • acitizen Logan, UT
    April 28, 2012 7:55 a.m.

    Gratitude for a gift is shown by using the gift for its intended purpose and by proper maintenance. God gave us this planet, thus we should both maintain it and use it wisely. Whether there is global warming or not, wasting carbon-based fuel is not showing gratitude. Failing to develop alternatives is foolish.
    Why did the government finance NASA in the first place? The pay-off for space exploration was too chancy and long-range for private investment to finance. The pay-off for developing energy alternatives is also chancy and long-range. Even so, there is some private investment. Hoorah for those brave visionaries!

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    April 27, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    Re: alt134

    Still the truth is that in the overall history of the Earth it has been either warmer or colder based upon its own doings and not anything Humans have done. The natural processes are still and will go on. Nothing we do will change that.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    April 26, 2012 5:37 p.m.

    I don't trust the science that has been shared to suggest man is the cause of major changes to the planet.

  • momoftwoinABQ Albuquerque, NM
    April 26, 2012 4:59 p.m.

    LDS Liberal, Sometimes I am in shock that you are still replying. Common sense seems to be a lost art for you and your only agenda seems to be to cling to your title, "liberal" NOT open minded.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2012 2:20 p.m.

    m.g. scott
    "I just want to remind all of you, in case others have not, that as recently as the 1970's the scientific fear was the new global ice age"

    A literature review of the scientific journals of the 70s, and the most read AMS (American Meteorological Society) journal article a year or two ago, showed that the majority of papers on global temperature, even in the 70s, were suggesting warming (albeit not as strong a majority as now but a majority nonetheless). It should also be noted that the drop in temperatures from the 1950s through the 70s was primarily due to the fact that aerosols have a cooling effect on warming. This is where a lot of the forecasts for cooling would come from, a continuation of us throwing more and more aerosols into the air. However, through regulation we got control over those pollutants and so the man-made cooling component of aerosols is being bested by the greenhouse gas warming component which is primarily why we switched back to warming.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    April 26, 2012 1:29 p.m.

    I just want to remind all of you, in case others have not, that as recently as the 1970's the scientific fear was the new global ice age. Now in Earth time, that is barely one second ago. How have things changes so much? Answer: Politics. There is a lot of money to be made with things getting HOT. Just ask Al Gore. The thing that galls me about the alarmists is that you'd think by their reasoning that the Earth had never been hotter or colder than it is now. Historical evidence shows periods of both. Why all the fuss. The wonderful planet Earth has a way of balancing the books, without our help. It has done so for millenia.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2012 1:19 p.m.

    Skeptics say that while traces of abiotic hydrocarbons may exist, little data support the idea of economically meaningful deposits. "Companies have been looking for oil for 100 years. If all this abiogenic stuff is there, why haven't they found it?" asks geochemist Geoffrey Glasby, who spent nine months investigating the matter for a 2006 review paper in Resource Geology. He concluded the totality of the evidence did not support the concept.

    "There is a difference between a few parts per million and tens of millions of barrels," says Chevron geologist Barry Jay Katz, another skeptic. He notes that the theory fails to explain the wide variety of biological compounds found in oil from different parts of world. Oil from younger rocks contains compounds linked to flowering plants, but oil from older rocks formed before flowering plants existed contains only more primitive organic compounds.-Forbes, Endless Oil?
    Robert Langreth. In response to Vladimir Kutcherov's theories.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 26, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" what about the US News, does that meet your standards? What about the Royal Institute of Technology, are they also faulty?

    How about the simple fact that Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH has been able to simulate Abiotic theories and produce hydrocarbons.

    From Science Daily read "Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find" apparently "Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated."

    Do you also have a poblem with the US News and with Science Daily.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2012 7:51 a.m.

    If somehow man can harness the effect that caused the nice warm winter in Salt Lake this year and make it the norm, then I think most Salt Lakers would support the influences causing such changes.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 26, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    USS Enterprise, UT
    To "LDS Liberal" unfortunately the data out there supports Abiotic Oil theory.

    Uh NO, it doesn’t.
    And World Net Daily is hardly considered a reliable source of news and information.

    Besides – even if I played along and believed every word you said, Abiotic Oil formation STILL requires Millions of Years and Plate Tectonics to produce….So burning Oil at the rates we are will STILL deplete the reserves.

    Renewable Energy [Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geo-Thermal] all powered by the SUN [or Son, what have you] has been, is, and always will be the answer.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    April 26, 2012 6:02 a.m.

    Thanks to Global Warming we do not live in the Ice Age which happened long before man and his CO2 production. As for Scientific studies, it might be nice to be shown what/how the data was obtained and why they reached the conclusion they did. e.g. Why is "Man-made" a part of their findings to the exclusion of other possibilities?

    April 25, 2012 9:45 p.m.

    Abrupt climate and hemispheric temperature changes have occurred repeatedly in the past 80,000 years, presumably without mankind's assistance.

    Scientists studying past climate variability have discovered temperatures rising or dropping several degrees in a period of time as short as 3 decades.

    To me, it seems likely that our CO2 creation by continuing to burn carbon fuels is contributing to GW, but how much that contribution is, is not well understood.

    But, abrupt climate change without people being the cause has been documented, and likely will happen again. Got your food storage?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 25, 2012 8:34 p.m.


    "Every scientist that is a Global Warming Alarmist is dependant on the government for their grants, and has learned that as long as they give the results that support the politicians' goals, they will receive funding."

    This would assume that in the United States, both Republican and Democratic administrations (at the state and federal levels) all have the same goals regarding Global Climate Change. Also, that governments throughout the world (democratic and totalitarian, advanced and third world) are all in agreement on GCC even though they are not in agreement on hardly anything else.

    To call this unlikely would be kind. It would be a conspiracy theory of the first magnitude.

    The key questions would be:

    "What is it about GCC that causes such phenomenal agreement among all governments?"


    "University professors are willing to buck conventional wisdom on nearly every topic, why not here?"

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 25, 2012 8:09 p.m.

    "It's time for us to elect officials who recognize this and are willing to make serious changes in energy, transportation and other public policies"
    What changes does Mr Jarvis have in mind? Government controlled thermostats? Mass transit only for the masses? "other public policies" e.g. no more single family dwellings?
    I am very interested in what these enlightened "officials" will prescribe for us. Methinks we have another "watermelon" on our hands (green on the outside, red on the inside)

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 25, 2012 4:30 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" unfortunately the data out there supports Abiotic Oil theory.

    See "Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'" at WND. There we find that samples of hydrocarbons coming from vents deep in the ocean contain carbon13, not carbon 12. Carbon 13 means that the oil was produced Abiotically, not by dead dinos.

    Also read "Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring" at US News. There we read about a well that was declining in production, then began to flow again with oil that can only be explained by Abiotic Oil theories.

    FYI, there is more than 1 scientist exploring these theories. According to the articles, there are groups of scientists working on these theories.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 4:26 p.m.

    The article from Duke Today, "Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report" is subtitled: Study does not discount the suspected contributions of 'greenhouse gases' in elevating surface temperatures.

    From the article: The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases.

    "Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change" Is a 2000 paper authored by Charles A. Perry and Kenneth J. Hsu which discusses the solar impact on global warming.

    From the paper’s abstract: The debate on the cause and the amount of global warming and its effect on global climates and economics continues. As world population continues its exponential growth, the potential for catastrophic effects from climate change increases. One previously neglected key to understanding global climate change may be found in examining events of world history and their connection to climate fluctuations.

  • RyaninOgden OGDEN, UT
    April 25, 2012 4:10 p.m.


    I really can't understand you're logic. I turn on my heater and my house gets warmer... How is that observation "godless?"

    If you believe in God, then it would be well within his power to stop anything that's undesirable, like global warming, rape, and genocide... But he allows it to continue. Doesn't mean he's not there neccessarily, just that we have to bare the consequenses of our actions.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 25, 2012 4:06 p.m.

    To "mark" and your pont is what. Every scientist that is a Global Warming Alarmist is dependant on the government for their grants, and has learned that as long as they give the results that support the politicians' goals, they will receive funding.

    Are you going to dismiss the alarmist's claims just as quickly as you dismiss the claims of those who look new data and expose the flaws in the models of the alarmists?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 3:29 p.m.

    The op-ed "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" is written by James M.Taylor. Mr. Taylor is a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute.

    The Heartland Institute is a conservative think tank that has received substantial money from oil companies.

    In the nineties The Heartland Institute worked with and received money from Phillip-Morris, the tobacco company, in questioning the science behind health risks resulting from secondhand smoke.

    The opinion piece by Mr. Taylor is based on claims made in a paper authored by Dr. Roy Spencer. Dr. Spencer is a climatologist and Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama. He is also a member of the Heartland Institute as well as a proponent of intelligent design. The paper, co-authored by William Braswell, “On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance" has been roundly denounced by the scientific community.

    An article on the Discover Magazine blog, Bad Astronomy, “No, new data does not ‘blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism” does a good job of discussing the op-ed by James Taylor.

  • Longfellow Holladay, UT
    April 25, 2012 2:43 p.m.

    Climate change has been made a controversial subject when it shouldn’t be. All reputable scientists on both sides of the issue agree that the earth’s climate changes. Further, the Greenhouse effect is real and increased CO2 contributes to the warming of the earth. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a real physical phenomenon. The argument has been over the degree to which AGW causes climate change and the necessity to address it.

    The controversy has been generated because (1) many climate scientists have downplayed the uncertainty of their best predictions of future temperature and some climate scientists have engaged in disreputable behavior, (2) the news media and some environmental alarmists have hyped predictions beyond what the majority of reputable climate scientists predict, (3) those that have proposed solutions have either failed to accurately model or completely ignored the economic impact of the solutions and some have seen proposed solutions to climate change as a method to implement national and global transfer of wealth.

    The result is that now the public is unconvinced of the significance of AGW and the necessity to address it in any manner that could have negative economic consequences.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 25, 2012 2:10 p.m.

    USS Enterprise, UT
    First, the climate is changing, just as it has since the earth existed.

    The problem is that the climate scientists have no idea how the atmosphere holds heat. Some think that it is CO2, but that doesn't hold true for tropical or humid areas since water vapor is such a better insulator.

    Those of you who complain about AGW deniers cherry picking data,

    Speaking of Cherry Picking RedShirt –
    Aren’t you the one who believes in that ONE study of ONE Scientist – and his “Abiotic theory” that fossil fuels aren’t fossils at all but are hydrocarbons found naturally and produced continually within the mantle of the earth. That oil seeps up through bedrock cracks to deposit in sedimentary rock.

    I’ve heard Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity promote it as real – as opposed to just about 99.9999% of Science who claim otherwise.

    Now, who would you suppose $$$ them to make such claims?
    Same with Big Tobacco, and his nicotine stained fingers…..

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 2:00 p.m.

    Climate change is not a theory. Changing seasonal-dependent wildlife migratory patterns, retreating glaciers, higher ocean temperatures and a host of other apolitical data confirm that fact - it's not hypothetical. The question is the anthropogenic factor. That needs further research.

  • Corn Dog New York, NY
    April 25, 2012 1:01 p.m.

    This is from a recent MSNBC interview with James Lovelock of gaia theory fame:

    "“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

    “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

    “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 12:38 p.m.

    "Some think that it is CO2, but that doesn't hold true for tropical or humid areas since water vapor is such a better insulator."

    Both are greenhouse gases. Water vapor makes up the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and methane are 2 and 3. Just because water vapor is a better insulator in tropical or humid areas doesn't mean other greenhouse gases have no role.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 25, 2012 12:25 p.m.

    Actually, one of the lead climate change propogandists James Lovelock finally defected from the eugenic global warming movement. He finally admitted that they have no idea what the climate is actually doing.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 25, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    First, the climate is changing, just as it has since the earth existed.

    The problem is that the climate scientists have no idea how the atmosphere holds heat. Some think that it is CO2, but that doesn't hold true for tropical or humid areas since water vapor is such a better insulator.

    Those of you who complain about AGW deniers cherry picking data, lets look at what NASA and some of the big climate change organizations have said recently:

    From Forbes "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism". Here we find that actual data has found "that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted".

    From Duke University "Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report". Here again, we find that the alarmists are basing their statements on a faulty model, and the energy output of the sun is not fully understood.

    From the National Academy of Sciences "Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change" apparently the sun is a highly significant driver for climate change.

    There are many studies that show holes in AGW alarmist theories.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 25, 2012 11:42 a.m.

    I’ll place Global Warming deniers with all the deniers and their claims…

    The Moon Landings were fake,
    Obama is a Muslim,
    And Cigarettes don’t cause cancer,

    Listen up lemmings, your hero Rush Limbaugh and his nicotine stained fingers, still denies this too.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 25, 2012 11:28 a.m.

    There is no balance between those arguing for and those arguing against Global Climate Change. Among the scientists study these things, the consensus is overwhelming. Are there a few doubters? Sure. There usually are in any field. We cannot make public policy based on outliers.

    Reference earth's warming or cooling cycles, I take it that if those of us commenting here are aware of these, so are the scientists for whom this is a life's work.

    If you are concerned about whether the GCC "Alarmists" or doubters are financially motivated. Do the math. The companies who have something to lose in the GCC argument are among the very largest in the world. So-called green companies cannot hold a candle to them in terms of financial influence.

    I recall the wars over smoking in the 1960s. Independent scientists all over the world kept coming up with the same conclusion. But the tobacco companies paid for research to cast doubt on the science and make it seem "unsettled". Lots of folks died because of that.

    I also remember the arguments that man simply could not pollute the rivers, lakes or oceans enough to matter. That also proved false.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 25, 2012 11:23 a.m.

    "To accuse man of global warming is to deny the existence of a supreme being that may be working his own design for whatever reason there may be."

    Couldn't you apply that logic to any of the worlds ills?

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    Ten known effects of global warming:

    "10) The growing season across the Northern Hemisphere is expanding;

    9) Precipitation has increased across the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (where most of the world’s crops are grown);

    8 ) Higher CO2 levels are leading to more productive plants, including crops such as corn, wheat, and rice …

    7) and contributing to an increasing global output of food products;

    6) The combination of the above is leading to a true “greening” of the environment;

    5) Global tropical cyclone activity has been declining over the past 20 years and is now near its 40-yr low;

    4) The rate of sea level rise has slowed during the past decade;

    3) The rate of global temperature rise has remained moderate and likely below the central value of climate model projections for the past 30 years;

    2) Evidence continues to mount against high climate sensitivity values.

    1) All this has the net result of increasing public health and welfare. For example across the globe, the life expectancy at birth is the longest it has ever been, and continues to climb upwards."

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    "To accuse man of global warming is to deny the existence of a supreme being that may be working his own design for whatever reason there may be."

    Thinking man is having a role in recent warming doesn't mean those people think there isn't a God. After all, we created the ozone hole, so why isn't it absurd that we could cause other things? Besides... God put us in charge of taking care of this planet.

    @John H.
    "Quite a few studies do indeed support the concept of human-caused climate change. Quite a few others refute it."

    The vast majority of studies support it. Your equivalency is false.

    "When pressed for facts, climate "scientists" resort to attacks on questioners"

    When you and many others consider everything they do to be a fraud because it doesn't conform to the pre-conceived narrative you want to be true because some obese drug addict with a microphone in the morning told you so, it really should be no surprise that sometimes they could be a little frustrated by the accusations leveled at them.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    April 25, 2012 11:02 a.m.

    Look, I'm not a climate scientist, nor, I suspect, are any of the other posters here. The question is who do we believe? I tend to believe experts in the field. I tend not to believe people with no expertise in the field. I rather think of climate change deniers as believers in a beautiful and innocent theory, waylaid by a vicious gang of facts.

  • ron holdaway Draper, UT
    April 25, 2012 10:33 a.m.

    Of courase there is climate change. We are in an interglacial period and, in geologic terms, at the outset of the natural warming of an interglacial period. The only question is the extent mankind's activities may be adding to the warming. Since there is no consensus as to what causes the natural warming, let alone quantification of it, it is impossible to signify the importance of the "unatural warming as compared to the natural warming. In this area of psuedo science, as in Economics, the so called experts are as contentious as theologians. Witness the gentleman from England who wanted to anathemitize any one who disagreed with his "consensus". William James hit it on the button when he said "what is "truth" but the passionate affirmation of desire". Those who desire unnatural warming to be the chief cause will find it so. Their opposite numbers will do the same. Neither can possibly quantify which cause or causes is the principal one. Lfind their own "truth". In X thousand years, long after we are all gone and the earth begins to slip into another ice age people will look back on this controversy and say--Ho Hum.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 25, 2012 10:22 a.m.

    Re: "Who believes in climate change?"

    Who cares?

    Real science is not a popularity contest. It's not about how many eggheads cluster about a theory, it's about what facts actually and demonstrably support its predictions and conclusions.

    That's what differntiates phrenology and eugenics -- both of which had educated, respected proponents -- from real science.

    Climate "scientists" -- proponents of one of the softest of the soft sciences -- take the phrenology approach. They expect us to "take their word for it" when they give us what amounts to a best guess about causes of, and solutions to climate change.

    Their shrill insistence that we invest enormous sums on radical, expensive schemes -- totally lacking in engineering, testing, and proof of value -- demonstrate an activist, not a scientific approach.

    When pressed for facts, climate "scientists" resort to attacks on questioners, or to lame excuses regarding "nuanced" data, inexact models, and complex evaluative instruments.

    Well, Eintsein is reputed to have said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

  • JohnH Cedar City, UT
    April 25, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    Quite a few studies do indeed support the concept of human-caused climate change. Quite a few others refute it. Instead of "flunking" a test recognizing human-caused climate change, I prefer to think of Utah "passing" a test by refusing to believe that it's been unquestionably proven. It has not. The climate has been changing ever since there has been a climate, and it's going to continue to change regardless of human activity and whether we like it or not.

  • Opinionated Sandy, UT
    April 25, 2012 10:14 a.m.

    Whether there is global warming or not is so debatable depending on who you want to believe. But, if it exists, the attitude that it is man made is egocentric and Godless. To accuse man of global warming is to deny the existence of a supreme being that may be working his own design for whatever reason there may be.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 9:33 a.m.

    @Thinking Man
    "That's because the thermometers show no change since 1998."

    You cherrypicked the strongest El Nino in decades to be your starting point (you may not have known it was the strongest El Nino, but that's why it has the title of warmest year on record). You left out details like that the 00s were warmer than the 90s which means that it is warming.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 9:18 a.m.

    Re: Don Jarvis: I realize that this op-ed is intended to worry us about "man-made global warming," but your cherry-picked quotes are entirely unconvincing.

    And you especially undermined your own credibility when you likened "climate-change doubters" to those who doubted the dangers of DDT. Sorry, but DDT is a miracle chemical that has saved millions of lives. But because of its politically motivated ban in the 1970s, millions have needlessly died.

    Also, your Mencken quote applies much more to the peddlers of global warming ALARMISM than to those who have doubts.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 25, 2012 9:15 a.m.

    The HL Mencken quote is good. But I prefer Ed Koch (former mayor of New York).

    "I can explain this to you; I can't comprehend it for you."

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    April 25, 2012 9:01 a.m.

    Funny, they'll use anything BUT a thermometer to talk about anthropogenic global warming. That's because the thermometers show no change since 1998.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 25, 2012 8:55 a.m.

    But this is UTAH….

    Where college drop outs like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck can trump each and every Scientific study, real world and casual observations, and plain old Common Sense don’t matter.

    Even statements by the LDS church regarding the Environment can’t compete with these blow-hards.

    Sad and pathetic.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 7:31 a.m.

    The scientific evidence indicating that global warming is real, significant, and man-made is overwhelming, and growing every day. "Worst-case" scenarios discussed as recently as ten years ago have turned out to be wrong - because actual trends in CO2 accumulation, ocean acidification, polar ice melting, climate zones shift, etc. are worse than those "worst case" predictions.

    Sadly, the political climate we find ourselves in today makes it possible for large numbers of Americans to reject scientific evidence that conflicts with personal beliefs, and never contemplate the danger of that.

    Blaze away, guys. Go watch your cable news shows. Reality will still be waiting for your when you're done fantasizing about conspiracy theories.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 25, 2012 7:12 a.m.

    Don't worry, Utah's politicians will do what is best for Industry no matter the cost to the earth, humanity and the rest of "god's creations" (which don't matter anyway, their just here for our use).

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 25, 2012 2:19 a.m.

    Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927) was a Swedish scientist, originally a physicist, but often referred to as a chemist, and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903. The Arrhenius equation, lunar crater Arrhenius and the Arrhenius Labs at Stockholm University are named after him.

    Arrhenius was also the first scientist to calculate that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to increased temperatures. You could reasonably call him the father of global warming. He never heard of Al Gore.