Complete disconnect between science and media

Return To Article
Add a comment
    Dec. 9, 2012 3:17 p.m.

    A lot of the comments validate the observation in the original letter. Most people are completely unaware of the work of people like John Christy, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick, Roger Pielke Sr., Roger Pielke Jr., Judith Curry, and others who object to the politicized tactics of those who declare the debate is over (it isn't), that there is a consensus (there isn't), and who have created the appearance of science by unduly influencing the editorial process in the scientific and popular media. There is, in fact, credible science refuting the claims of alarmists like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt of NASA, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, and others.

    Most of us get it that we've been in a warming trend, which was preceded by a cooling trend, with a warming trend before that. Somebody please prove that it's due to atmospheric CO2 using data instead of computer models, and that mitigation (if even possible) is somehow preferable to adaptation. Until then, please stop with the carbon tax and green energy nonsense.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2012 3:23 p.m.

    Professor Phil Jones (yes, the same Jones who was caught up in the “ClimateGate” scandal – which, btw, never turned up any evidence of scientific misconduct), was often quoted as saying that the data from 1995-2009 did not show significant warming. It did show warming, which was statistically significant at the 90% confidence level – but not the 95% that is the accepted cutoff. Well, after adding in the data for 2010, the warming trend for this period is now, according to Jones, significant at the 95% level.

    . . . sorting through all of this noise in the climate data is not for the amateur. Of course, now that climate change is a politically-charged issue, the internet if full of exactly that – amateur analysis of the data. This is definitely an area where substituting one’s own analysis for the consensus of scientific opinion is probably not a good idea.- Steven Novela

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2012 1:50 p.m.

    "if what they are saying is outside the uncertainty limits, that means that their model is WRONG."

    The vast majority of their projections are within the uncertainty limits. For someone who rants about 95% confidence, you sure seem unable to accept the idea that 95% is not 100%.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 7, 2012 8:10 a.m.

    To "atl134" if what they are saying is outside the uncertainty limits, that means that their model is WRONG.

    Also, the strength and number of hurricains have been calculated, temperature rises have been miscalculated, along with the effects of water vapor and clouds.

    With the climate change models, the only thing that they get right is that the climate changes. They show no link to manmade CO2, nor do they show that man's influence contributes any significant change on a global scale.

    The problem that you, "LDS Liberal", "mark" and your ilk, don't realize that science has standards. For papers to be published in scientific journals for hard sciences they depend on a 95% confidence interval to establish that something is mostly correct, or accurate. The only way that climate model studies have been published is by ignoring the established rule of 95% CI.

    To "LDS Liberal" do you think that if we can't explain a simple magnet that we can model a complex system like a planet?

    You are the one who does not understand science. If you did, you would realize that if a study has significant flaws, then then the conclusions drawn from it are wrong.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:32 p.m.


    Science can not explain something as common as "magnets".

    Does that mean we haven't learned what they can do, or how we are affected by them?
    of course not.

    You really don't know what Science is, and what it is not.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 5:57 p.m.

    "Which means that their model is wrong, and cannot correctly predict outcomes, but the results taken from the incorrect outcomes are correct?"

    Redshirt, do you understand the science, or how science works? And I'm really not being snarky, I'm just saying that a lot of your comments really don't seem to show much if an understanding of how science works. I'm not saying you have to just agree with everything science says, science does make mistakes, and it is constantly correcting itself. (One of the beautiful things about it.) but do you understand the process, and how to apply it to your outlook on the world?

    I'm also wondering how much of the actual climate research you look at, not just the stuff critical of human caused climate change, but the stuff that actually supports it, and the stuff that argues against the deniers stance. And are you looking at it objectively? And yes, before you ask, I do look at a lot of the information the deniers put out.

    Cause it really doesn't seem like you are really aware of the subtleties of the argument. I'm just saying.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 3:45 p.m.

    I'm saying that there are people who focus only on the things the IPCC got outside their uncertainty limits, whereas there are plenty of predictions that are still trending within the uncertainty bounds. They just don't get attention in media because they aren't outliers in either direction (like himalayan ice, or Arctic sea ice). I'm saying to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The models aren't perfect, but just because they can't seem to get a good grip on one thing or another doesn't mean that they're completely useless.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 3:23 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    As I have said it is up science to prove scientific hypotheses.

    Scienece has not or can not proved or disproven God.

    I NEVER said the earth was 6000 years Old, that is just the interpretatioon of some who have tried to put disparate scriptures together that may not go together. I personally do not believe it. 'Create' is more properly translated as "Organize" which means existing material, and we have not told concerning previous earth state or the existing material.

    But back to climate change, science proposes it is man caused, science must prove it is.

    So far all it has is suppostion and conjecture, and linking things where there is no provan link other than assumption.

    So let us stop with this childish twisting of words and putting non-written words in other mouths and the feigning of not understanding.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 2:18 p.m.

    re: LDS Liberal 11:13 a.m. Dec. 6, 2012

    **And as for "Science"
    - there's far more physical evidence supporting evolution, than there is support a 6,000 year old earth.**

    What!? Dinosaur bones are older than 6 millenia? Stop the presses... well the ones owned by Rupert Murdoch anyway.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 6, 2012 1:43 p.m.

    To "atl134" lets get this straight. You said that "the IPCC overestimated (like himalayan glaciers) to notice the things that are in line with the models or that the IPCC underestimated (arctic sea ice loss)." Which means that their model is wrong, and cannot correctly predict outcomes, but the results taken from the incorrect outcomes are correct?

    Again, you say that a bad model can give good results. Since when is that true?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 12:01 p.m.

    @Roland Keyser
    "The decade just ended was the warmest on record, and this current year is on track to be the warmest ever. "

    The current year is on track to be the warmest for the US. It is, however, only on pace to be something like 5th or 6th warmest globally if I recall correctly.

    "Ok liberals, are those sufficient to determine that climate change is a natural thing, or at best man has little to do with it. Do you also see that the climate models are wrong, and have yet to give accurate results?"

    No, because I study atmospheric science and actually pay attention to the broad scope of the science rather than just focusing on a few things the IPCC overestimated (like himalayan glaciers) to notice the things that are in line with the models or that the IPCC underestimated (arctic sea ice loss). Some little article in the Daily Mail is not going to make me throw away my atmospheric science textbooks.

    "the people who believe that climate change is natural...the people who believe that man is the cause of the climate change"

    Any decent climate scientist knows both factors are at play.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:53 a.m.

    There is a complete disconnect between what is going on in the science and this letter writer. It is well-established that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the presence of it is responsible for warmer temperatures. It is also well-established that "no warming in 16 years" is a baseless claim since every since year in the 2000s was warmer than the 1990s average. That suggests that there is still warming, and that the reason for the 14 years claim (not 16) is the fact that 1998 was very anomalously warm due in large part to a strong El Nino at the time. Doesn't change the fact that even the La Nina years in the 2000s are above the 1990s average.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:13 a.m.

    the truth
    Holladay, UT
    @one old man
    @Twin Lights

    The causal link is everything, and not basing on supposition (just like the bad science of evolution).
    You can suppose whatever you want but that is NOT science.

    10:17 a.m. Dec. 6, 2012


    So then, ...what is it are you trying to say here, "the truth"
    that God does not exist?

    You lost me, quite honestly.

    And as for "Science"
    - there's far more physical evidence supporting evolution, than there is support a 6,000 year old earth.

    I believe in God, Heis the great Scientist,
    Evolution is real, and it took Him 4.5 billion years to get the earth to this stage.

    So you lost me.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    @one old man
    @Twin Lights

    It is up science to prove those hypotheses. Not me.

    Science has proved the causal link of carcinogens causing cancers.

    Science has NOT proved man made climate change.

    Just because, supposedly, the average temperature has risen 1 degree (keeping in mind there iwas no way they could measured the tempurature of the world in 1850) does not mean it is not natural.

    The causal link is everything, and not basing on supposition (just like the bad science of evolution).

    You can suppose whatever you want but that is NOT science.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:03 a.m.

    Wally West,

    Great comment.

    Redshirt et. al.

    I am sure the scientific community already understands and has accounted for every point you mention and thousands of others you and I are not aware of.

    Christian 24-7,

    Science is not as fluid as you indicate.

    True God has given us the earth. He has also given us our brains and bodies. But we can mess those up. There is no reason to believe we can’t do the same to the earth (surely our bodies and brains are more sacred than the earth). It’s the “take care of it” part we seem to be missing. It is a commandment, not a promise that He will do it for us.

    As to balance. What you describe is not seen in other systems. Where we have over polluted, the system can lose the balance God put into it and become unstable. He will only protect us from ourselves for so long.

    We have dominion (control) over the earth. We can, in fact, change it.

    the truth,

    I recall similar arguments about there being no causal links between smoking and cancer. Many died believing the well-funded campaigns to deny it.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:30 a.m.

    Many years ago, I took a Meteorology class at the U of Utah. One thing I learned & has stuck with me is; the average temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius since 1850 (the start of the Industrial revolution).

    Carbon Dioxide is a by product of coal & was used in Victorian Britain and elsewhere to power factories. Since then, other hydrocarbons have been used since to keep industry going.

    To say there aren't natural cycles in the temperature would be as fool hardy as saying man does not affect his environment. Its just a matter of what ratio (natural v man made ) is affecting climate change.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:43 a.m.

    To "Blue" you still don't get it. Yes the climate is changing, just like it always has. The problem that your ilk is having with everything I have presented is coming up with a scientific study that meets the 95% confidence interval that links man made CO2 with the warming.

    Do you or do you not know of a study that meets that criteria?

    Since no study or model meets that criteria, why do you and your ilk insist on believing the conclusions made from faulty models and studies?

    Your latest posts show that you don't understand the issue at all. Please go back and actually read what I have stated.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 10:55 p.m.

    What we call truth in the world of science is almost as fluid as want politicians call truth. Surely much of what we believe to be hard science true, we will change our minds on in the years to come.

    With that in mind, being a believer in a God and Savior makes the environmental issue a lot easier to navigate. We have been given the earth by our loving God, who is all powerful, with the charge to use what it provides for our needs, and take care of it. I totally comfortable with a blend of using the resources given us, and being mindful of the earth's needs, without being chicken little about it. We do the best we can, and the Omniscient God above will help us when needed.

    I also believe that He, in His wisdom, made the carbon dioxide symbiotic relationship between animal and plant life to help keep things in balance. As the population grows, the CO2 rises so we can grow enough food to feed the growing world population.

    God has been great so far, so I think I will stick with His plan, and skip the environmentalists' agenda.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 9:57 p.m.

    Red Shirt -- have you actually read any of the articles you listed in your post at 12:49? If you would take the time to read them, you might discover that many of them DO NOT support your claim. Here is an excerpt from one of them. This is from the article you list with the title "Past Warming Shows Gap . . "

    At present, CO2 levels have already risen from 280 parts per million to nearly 390 ppm since the Industrial Revolution and could exceed a 70 percent increase during this century, a rate much faster than the Palaeocene-Eocene event, Zeebe said.

    While this would cause initial effects, much worse could follow in the coming decades and centuries as the oceans, land and atmosphere tried to deal with the higher CO2 levels, he said.

    "The carbon that we put into the atmosphere right now is going to stay there for a very long time. Much of it will stay there for tens of thousands of years."

    As I said, if you will actually READ the stuff you're touting, you might make some shocking discoveries.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 9:43 p.m.

    Okay, Truth, then can you PROVE that what you are saying is absolutely true?

    Can you PROVE that the current period of warming is NOT due to increased human activity?

    Can you show us a time anywhere in history during which there were over 7 billion humans on earth pumping almost immeasurable quantities of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and various chemicals (most developed only recently by humans in laboratories) into Earth's thin and delicate atmosphere?

    In other words, while you are asking others to prove to you what is causing global warming, can you PROVE to us that we are NOT the cause?

    Go ahead and PROVE us all wrong.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 9:26 p.m.

    There is no proof that climate has been effected by man.

    The fallacious "Chasing Ice" does not prove man made climate change.

    One would need prove the ice has not receded in the past. Which it in fact has.

    The fact is Ice natural melts and grows. And has done so over several year periods.

    One would also have to prove there is causal link between man and the ice melting.

    That has NEVER been proved.

    If you base it solely on the basis that two things are both increasing, then you can show a whole host of silly ans nonsensical things are causing climate change.

    You must prove a casual link.

    It is disappointing that all left has left is diminutive insults and name calling toward the right and conservatives.

    That is not proof either, but evidence of leftest desperation.

    Someone who claims to have the facts on their side has no need of such childishness.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 8:11 p.m.

    Blue, you're fighting a hopeless battle trying to convince some folks about climate change. (Or any of a couple dozen other issues, for that matter.)

    Being capable of understanding that kind of thing requires at least some intellectual capacity. I submit that quality is sorely lacking in those who refuse to investigate and learn the truth.

    You will probably never be able to convince any of them otherwise. And they lack the intelligence to consider any information beyond what they have been led through gullibility to cling to.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 8:00 p.m.

    Re: "This is one of those letters that makes me slap my palm to my forehead."

    Keep slapping.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 6:10 p.m.

    RedShirt: "To "Blue" you don't understand science."

    Pretty much guarantee you're wrong.

    "The climate consists of more than just temperatures."

    True, but climate also is based on temperatures.

    "Where is the evidence."

    Would it do any good to show it to you? Melting glaciers? Melting sea ice? Warming oceans? Thawing permafrost? Ocean acidification? Rapidly changing ecologies?

    How about isotopic surveys of carbon in the atmosphere establishing the burning of coal and oil as the source of what will soon be 400 ppm of CO2 in the air?

    Tell you what - just Google "NASA Global Climate Change Evidence." There's plenty there to get you started. That's a collection of hard scientific evidence assembled by smart, careful, honest climate researchers.

    This is a good debate to have and we need to be thorough and clear about the scientific evidence for manmade climate change. This matters too much to let it disappear into the smoke and noise generated by denialists.

    American public policy on climate change needs to be based on scientific reality, not distortions invented for right wing blogs and FOX news by Exxon sponsored "think tanks."

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 5, 2012 4:19 p.m.

    To "Blue" you don't understand science. Just because temperatures have not statistically risen, that does not mean that the climate is stagnant. The climate consists of more than just temperatures.

    As for the rate of change, the Ice Cores from Greenland have shown that the earth has warmed faster on its own, than what we are currently experiencing. So, the rates is not an indicator of human involvement. Read about the Younger Dryas event where global temperatures dropped 10 degrees in less than 50 years. Then rose by 4 degrees in a few years. Man had nothing to do with those changes, yet the change was faster than our current rate of change.

    Where is the evidence. So far you have offered no proof that man is causing any warming. You are basing your opinion on faulty models.

    To "Tolstoy" it is obvious that you didn't read any of them. They are interviews with scientists who have written the studies. If you had read any of them, you would see where they reference their work.

    To "Kalindra" you said to supply references I supplied more than enough. Go and read them with Tolstoy then get back with me.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 5, 2012 4:07 p.m.

    @ RedShirt: Those are not sources - they are newspaper articles and opinion pieces and many of them have been thoroughly debunked - as have the sources they cite.

    Name 5 sources - scholarly scientific journal articles that show the formulas and data that support your position.

    You should be able to find about 24 of them. During 1991 and 2012 that is how many journal articles were written that reject global climate change or deny that humans are responsible.

    On the other hand, there were 13,926 articles written during that same period that accept global climate change and the premise that humans are responsible.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 4:02 p.m.

    the very fact that every one of your "sources" are opinion pieces not scientific studies show the error of the letter writers logic. why is it that the far right always accuses everyone else of the poor behaviors they are engaging in? [out down the opinion pieces and pick up some actual scientific studies.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 3:58 p.m.

    Salt Lake City, UT

    Save your breath.

    RedShirt is about as hardcare far-right-wing FoxNews Limbaugh Glenn Beck fan as they can come.

    The only source for is "information" comes from only one or 2 biased sources, and only after getting 2 enthusiastic thumbs up from "The Blaze".

    Everything else in the world is a distorted, liberally warped view of the world and isn't real.

    He has his guns, gold, and bunker in Southern Utah.
    He'll be safe - and we'll all be safe - right where he is.

    RedShirt -
    remember, you can come out safely about 120 days after the mushroom clouds disapate.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 5, 2012 3:46 p.m.

    Your comparison is flawed redshirt. We're not dealing with the middle ages but a >95% confidence in the scientific method which has over time convinced a near consensus of climatologists that releasing a great deal of CO2 into the atmoshere does actually change climate patterns.

    You are not Galileo in this scenario but someone like Vincenzo Maculani.

    The only unknown phenomenon here is how the oil industry can get you to shill for them completely unpaid.

    My solar panels and hybrid save me money. Lots of it. Try to argue against that.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 2:35 p.m.

    To "Blue" yes I read the article. Did you? The point is that even the best scientists don't know what is going on. The article stated "No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect."

    If the best predictions are incorrect, why are they incorrect? Do they assume that the role of CO2 is greater than it truely is? Do those scientists even have an accurate model?

    Here is the key that your ilk fails to recognize. If the best models are wrong, why are their conclusions deemed correct?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 2:34 p.m.

    RedShirt: "I have not heard of any credible scientist that says that the global climate is not changing. The dispute is what is causing the change. It is man caused or a natural cycle?"

    Hmmm... isn't the author of the letter saying that temperatures _aren't_ going up, that global warming _isn't_ happening? Isn't that the basis of the whole "no temperature change in 16 years" theme from the denialists?

    But now you're saying that temps _are_ rising, but that it's not human caused?

    Yes, significant climate change has in the past been natural. It's also been very much slower than what we're experiencing now.

    The changes we're seeing now are happening tremendously faster than anything that can be accounted for naturally. And these changes are accellerating as the feedback cycle between CO2 in the air and temperature change is amplifying.

    The "smoking guns" pointing to anthropogenic global warning are all around you. You just have to recognize them for what they are.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 2:31 p.m.

    To "Screwdriver" when are the liberals going to realize that scientific studies are not deemed true by a consensus, but are determined true or at least mostly true once they meet a 95% confidence interval for their models?

    If a consensus was all that was needed, then using your logic, the Earth is flat, the sun revolves around the sun, the speed of sound could not be broken, man cannot fly, tectonic plates do not exist, women are less capable than men, non-whites are inferior to whites, washing your hands is irrelevant to spreading illness, etc...

    The ironic thing is that by declaring a consensus, you inhibit actual discovery because you scare the scientists away from disproving the consensus.

    "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual" Galileo Galilei

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 2:26 p.m.


    You're quoting opinion pieces and the right wing echo chamber of denialist talking points - all of which have been thoroughly refuted by actual climate science. Are Forbes, The Daily Mail or the WSJ climate science journals? Not remotely.

    But, you do quote an article from Science Daily. Good for you. Did you bother to actually read the entire article? Is there _anything_ in the article that resembled the authors saying "and therefore anthropogenic global warming is not happening"? Nope.

    Moreover, here's what the article's primary author, Dr. Gerald Dickens, said in a 2009 TV interview on the subject of his research, "As far global warming, that is just a huge problem. I can give you my own personal opinions. I think it’s going to take a radical view of a change in lifestyle, as well as new technologies. And it’s really going to take a combination of both."

    Next time you cite scientists' research as evidence that global warming isn't man-made or siginificant, I challenge you to actually email the authors and ask them if whatever they're saying translates into "I don't believe in global warming." Let us know their response.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 2:12 p.m.

    To "nonceleb" you are falling for the trap. There is a difference between believing in climate change and believing in man made climate change.

    I have not heard of any credible scientist that says that the global climate is not changing. The dispute is what is causing the change. It is man caused or a natural cycle?

    The interesting thing about the two viewpoints is that the people who believe that climate change is natural believe that the climate should change, while the people who believe that man is the cause of the climate change want it to remain constant (contrary to past geological evidence).

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 5, 2012 2:03 p.m.

    Blah blah, but these same people just know that Obama was born in Kenya, tax cuts increase revenue and that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear bomb hidden somewhere.

    They knew all that without proof or consensus but now need the last few scientists employed by the oil companies to agree with the 99.99% that don't work for Big Oil that see the link in burning fossil fuel and climate change.

    When will a consensus be necessary for their own tin foil hat theories?

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 1:21 p.m.

    No link? You have got to be kidding! Ice cores, which date back tens of thousands of years show the that cooling and warming fluxuations coincide with CO2 levels. I suggest you go see "Chasing Ice" about a photographer, who was a global warming skeptic.

    The real disconnect is between science and conservative media.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 12:49 p.m.

    To "Kalindra" here are some sources:

    "Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists" UK Daily Mail

    "Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists" from Cambridge Chronical

    "1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today" UK Register

    "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" Forbes

    "Past warming shows gaps in climate knowledge - study" Reuters

    "Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again" WSJ

    "The sun shines some light on global warming orthodoxy" National Post

    "The Great Global Warming Fizzle" WSJ

    "Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer" UK Register

    "Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory" American Thinker

    "Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong" Science Daily

    Ok liberals, are those sufficient to determine that climate change is a natural thing, or at best man has little to do with it. Do you also see that the climate models are wrong, and have yet to give accurate results?

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 11:54 a.m.

    If there was ever a reason for the Senate to ratify the UN treaty to protect those with disabilities it is this letter.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 11:09 a.m.

    Gullibility is alive and well in Utah.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 5, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    To the auther: Please list 5 sources that support your claim.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    Saw an interesting study by Simply Statistics, showing how Fox News abuses statistics to bend the truth. Fascinating, all the things you can prove when you change the baseline or axis on charts or change the scale to make a decrease look like an increase.

    Oh, and the earth is flat.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 9:56 a.m.

    The disconnect isn't between science and media. But hey, that's OK. As long as we can maintain deniability, an illusion such as it is, we can indulge our inner lazy and not do a thing about it. That's the utah armchair climatologists' way.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 9:13 a.m.

    And people like this letter writer wonder why they lost the election???

    The sky is round, we aren't the center of the universe, the sun doesn't revolve around us, the earth is older than 5,000 years, and the climate is definitely changing because of man.

    It's not really disputable.

    Their persistence in denying will all but guarantee more losses in future elections.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    I figured out what's wrong.
    It's called "selective listening".
    This is common with people who only get their information from one or 2 very biased sources --

    Try changing the channel ! -- only Rush Limbaugh and some at FauxNews along with other college-drop-outs are denying Global Warming is real.

    FYI - Rush Limbaugh denies tobacco causes cancer and lung disease, does that still mean 60 years of Science is wrong and the Media is disconnected as well?!

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 8:40 a.m.

    Completely false. 2000 to 2010 was the hottest decade in recorded history. That is indisputable.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 7:53 a.m.

    Bottom line: On October 13, 2012, the Daily Mail posted an article crediting the UK Met Office with saying that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article went viral this week. One day later, however, the UK Met Office disavowed the Daily Mail article, saying it did not say global warming had stopped and was not contacted by the article’s author. According to the UK Met Office and tens of thousands of other scientists worldwide, global temperatures are still rising.-earthsky

    UK Met also stated that the graph used in the Daily Mail was not theirs, as claimed by Daily Mail.

    Maybe you need to follow these things just a bit closer.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 5, 2012 7:40 a.m.

    Mr. Thompson,

    It is nearly impossible for me to reconcile your statements with reality. You say you have been following the science for decades yet you make statements so easily shown to be false (or at least half truths that obscure the real truth). Sorry.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 6:27 a.m.

    Go watch "Chasing Ice." Although I harbor some doubts that even that compelling documentary about the accelerating worldwide meltdown of glaciers would sway the author, who seems firmly entrenched in the global climate change deniers' little camp.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 5:09 a.m.

    This is one of those letters that makes me slap my palm to my forehead.

    Scientific understanding of the link between atmospheric CO2 and temperature goes back to the 1860's.

    Atmospheric CO2 is today at the highest level in the last several hundred thousand years, and climbing fast. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 proves the increase comes from combustion of fossil fuels.

    The claim that there has been no warming in the past 16 years and therefore global warming isn't real is completely false, and is based on an egregiously dishonest interpretation of historical temperature data. It's the same as observing that because a 12 year old isn't significantly taller a week after his birthday than he was a week before his birthday that humans don't get taller as they mature.

    If you get your "news" about global warming primarily from right wing blogs and AM radio I can see how you'd think global warming isn't real.

    If, however, you get your science news from actual professional science journals, you'll get an accurate, fact-based, and completely different education on the subject.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 12:17 a.m.

    Continued from NASA's website:
    A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

    The decade just ended was the warmest on record, and this current year is on track to be the warmest ever. That sounds to me like warming is still going on.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 12:15 a.m.

    From NASA's website:
    Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

    The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

    Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.