Cruz, Krauthammer: Climate change not settled science

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • iammad ROOSEVELT, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    Below is a quote of facts from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
    Read it and judge for yourself.

    Thicker on top, more down under
    February 5, 2014

    "Arctic sea ice extent remained lower than average in January, and just within two standard deviations of the long-term average. Arctic temperatures remained above average, even as cold winter air embraced North America. The retention of more sea ice in September 2013 has increased the overall thickness and volume of the ice pack compared to recent years. Antarctic sea ice remains significantly more extensive than average."

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 25, 2014 5:00 p.m.

    wait...Al Gore said it was a settled science. Isn't that enough?? The man invented the internet I'm certain his global warming hysteria is just as accurate. about that heat wave on the east coast!!! If anything liberals are predictable.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Feb. 23, 2014 1:24 p.m.

    Here we go again! It I a all going to come down to two men huddled around the last berry bush? This crowd ought to do something constructive in life besides looking at every cloud in the sky and counting the number of water drops in a down pour!

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Feb. 23, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    The idea about the effects of increasing CO2 on the atmosphere has existed in the scientific community for years. Al Gore just publicized it.

    If we continue to pollute the earth it eventually will be unfit to live on. If we continue to reproduce we will use up every resource we need. The earth will survive just fine. We however will be extinct.

    Feb. 22, 2014 10:06 p.m.

    The necessary piece of evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes global warming would be a mathematical correlation between changes in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. But there is no correlation. A lot of very smart people have spent 30 years and billions of dollars trying to find it, but without success. There is no amount of anecdotal evidence - which is about all we ever see any more on the subject - that will overcome this simple fact, that based on the empirical data, atmospheric CO2 does not drive global temperature.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 22, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    Wow, what a feeding fest.

    It is amazing though to see a topic like "climate change" that is about first of all an earth that is over 4 billion years old, and human influence that likely is about 50,000 years old, when agriculture started, discussed within the context of a decade and ice being added to some glaciers in the last couple of years.

    It's actually disheartening though to see something as important and complex as our environment reduced to biblical stories, political talking points, and random observations, all the time choking on air that you can taste.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    “'There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge,' Krauthammer wrote.”

    This is a point I've been making for at least the last couple of decades.

    The puritanical kind of mentality that has risen from those who are arrogant enough to declare anyone voicing a note of skepticism regarding the "science" of global warming/change/etc. is so utterly antithetical to true science it is disgusting to any true scientist, of which I'm one.

    If "consensus" were the only criterion for determining scientific "fact" (i.e., "settled science") then the evidence in 1998 showing that the universe is not only expanding but that the expansion is **accelerating** would have had to be discarded.

    As any student of physics 101 knows, the force of gravitation as we knew it for the prior couple hundred years (not much more "settled" than that) simply didn't allow for such a thing. It was **impossible**! Yet, the evidence proved otherwise and so all the "settled" science that precluded such fact is now in the process of revision, using mysterious terms like **dark** (as in, inexplicable) matter/energy. It's all very unsettling.

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    Feb. 21, 2014 10:38 p.m.

    The consensus of scientists has been used as a political tool to stir people up to a false notion that we have some great influence over our planet.

    The problem with this is it takes away from the science of climate change. Our climate has been changing all the time. Our earth is not going to be the same in every spot. And it is important to look at how we are effecting climate change so we can make well thought out adjustments to better care for our environment.

    Unfortunately the climate conspiracy theorists have gotten a hold of this science and are using it to form some political movement to turn everyone but the very elite back to the stone age (insert Al Gore's extravagant life style anywhere). They exaggerate claims, falsify and fabricate data, and coerce and abuse peoples dedicated work to prop up their political movement. They are even going as far as attempting to silence those who have different scientific findings then their limited world view.

    Climate alarmists have lost their credibility and are taking down the very important work of climatologist the world over.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    Opinions is like the weather. Any one know a man of principles.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 9:28 p.m.

    Tell these guys to get Utahans to ignore the inversions.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 4:50 p.m.

    @ Copacetic
    Krauthammer is a medical Doctor. I would take his opionion on a medical issue over a climate scientist but not when it comes to global climate change. The 98% number of climate scientist who agree upon CO2's impact to the earth's changes are easy to find. Just google it. My issue with conservatives or liberals is they always think to know more than anyone else. What they have is opinions. When it comes to science I'll leave it to the people who practice it and have to have their findings supported by their peers. When it comes to politics I'll go to politcans. Krauthammer is an entertainer as well as a Doctor and he knows Fox's audience and management. He'd be out of a job if he came out and refuted the climate deniers. Straddling the fence as he is let's him hold on to his job while providing some type of credence to him being a man of science and deep thought.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Feb. 21, 2014 4:16 p.m.

    Don't try your Jedi mind tricks on me Krafty, it only works on conservatives.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    A Quaker,
    I got my definition of "Consensus" from Webster's dictionary (online). So maybe he got it wrong?

    Or maybe it is you who has the wrong definition of "Consensus" in his head.

    "Consensus" doesn't mean a majority vote, or most people mostly agreeing. It means all are in agreement (at least that's what Webster's Dictionary says).

    But I acknowledge that "Consensus" is an oft mis-used word.
    So by the definition they evidently use in Climate Science... maybe it does just mean most people agree.

    Regardless... we all need to work, not just talk.

    As long as I am doing my best... I think that's all you can expect of me. I'm not responsible for how you, or everybody else in the world acts. Pretending you can control the world, or how much they pollute, is delusional (IMO).

    And thinking if anybody isn't as radical as you are about it they are wrong... is a thought process that leads only to frustration.

    We all like the earth. Nobody wants it to be destroyed.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 4:02 p.m.

    Settled or not... we all know we need to take care of this planet (it's a commandment).

    So we should do whatever we can to care for it. But we need to get over this attitude that if somebody else doesn't get as radical about their conservation or their environmentalism as YOU do... I am terrible.

    We can all have differing levels of radicalization on this... and still be OK.

    It doesn't mean I WANT polluted air, or I LOVE polluted water, or I HATE the planet.

    We all want clean air, clean water, and no... nobody wants to destroy the earth.

    If we can accept that.... we can all get along a lot better, and focus on making progress, instead of just shouting past each other (when we all really want the same thing, just different paths).

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Feb. 21, 2014 3:17 p.m.

    @Copacetic: That big dinosaur extinction event was 66 million years ago.

    As for how they determine historical CO2 levels, you'll have to ask a scientist. I know it has something to do with ice core samples, fossilized plankton, petrified tree rings, limestone formation and things like that.

    I did look up the articles again (in both National Geographic and WSJ) about the 400 ppm levels recently measured, and it referred to the Pleiocene as the last epoch that had levels that high. The Pleiocene was from 3 to 5 million years ago, not 10 million as I thought I had remembered reading, so please accept this correction to my post.

    @2Bits: You're confusing the notion of consensus with the notion of unity. Having sat through many a Quaker business meeting, I can assure you they're not the same thing.

    Besides, who are you going to believe? Civil servant government scientists and university researchers from every Western nation on the one hand, or public relations flacks and hired spokesmodel scientists for the fossil fuel industries on the other? Who's got money on the line in this "debate?"

  • Copacetic Richfield, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 2:38 p.m.

    @ FT:

    You missed the age question by 1000x.
    Ice glaciers are admittedly 10,000 years old. But Quaker is claiming we have more CO2 levels now than anytime in the last 10,000,000 (that's ten million) years.

    A person can't make conclusions from a vastly earlier era using data from sources only 1/1,000 of that timeframe. In other words, it's impossible for ten thousand year old glaciers to reveal anything from an era nearly ten million years before they existed.

    Where exactly does your 98% statistic come from? Hopefully, that wasn't another arbitrary figure from the top of your head. If so, it means absolutely nothing. A valid source would be much more helpful to establish any credibility.

    BTW: Dr. Krauthammer has previously written more science related articles that most people commenting on this post have probably even read. Perhaps you missed the part in the article which quoted him as saying he doesn't take a stance on either side of the global warming debate. He simply contends that it's absurd for either side to claim any "settled science".
    So who exactly is it that "butters your bread"?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    The impact of global warming in the region has been controversial since an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report wrongly claimed in 2007 that glaciers in most of the greater Himalayan range could vanish by 2035

    The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlaya, are in fact advancing

    Scientists have measured new ice in Montana's Glacier National Park and atop Colorado's Front Range mountains. In northwest Wyoming, there is photographic evidence of snowfield growth

    All seven glaciers on California's Mount Shasta are growing. This includes the state's largest, the three-mile-long Whitney Glacier. Three of Mount Shasta's glaciers have doubled in size since 1950.

    The Nisqually Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. The Emmons Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. Glaciers on Glacier Peak in northern Washington are growing.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 2:06 p.m.

    My post was taken from

    Might I also add Mormon 8:31 "Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations;"

    And again Mormon 8:38 "O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker".

    It seems that ancient prophets who saw our time were more concerned with the pollution of the soul, and the pollution of the soil.

    We should concern ourselves with exercising appropriate stewardship of all that God has given us. We must maintain the earth, the land, the water, the air, and all things to keep them beautiful.

    But at the same time we must also keep the commandments of God. Honesty, morality, chastity, sexual purity, pure thoughts, purity of heart, caring for the poor among us, not consuming and spending more than we can (debt), kindness, love, charity.

    None of us are perfect. But we can keep our environment clean in every way.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    When Al Gore says we have "Consensus".. we have consensus.

    But I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.

    According to Webster it means "a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by ALL the people in a group".

    So unless the "group" is defined as Al Gore and people who agree with him... we don't have full "Consensus" yet.

    Not even all climate scientists claim to have consensus on this. A majority vote is not the same as "Consensus". Even a super-majority. Consensus means "ALL" in the group.

    We may not have consensus... But we do have enough evidence that we need to do better on our emissions to start paying more attention and doing everything we can to limit or eliminate what we consume and what we emit.

    So I think we should individually do everything we can to limit our consumption and our pollution. But we should NOT try to use this as an excuse to establish the new world order, meaning Global Governance (by a group of non-elected people who may or may not represent the will of the people).

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    Dr. Krauthammer also knows who butters his bread. Scientist know the CO2 levels from 10,000 year ago by taking ice samples that were created during this era. Yes science results can change and be altered. But we have alot of evidence at this time that indicates the earth is warming at an incredible rate. Also, 98% of climate scientist (not Fox politcal analysts) agree with this assessment and think man's CO2 emissions have played a role in it. Lets leave science to the scientist and politcs to our friends at Fox.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    Svante Arrhenius showed that increased carbon in the atmosphere would lead to higher temperatures. He did this in 1896. All Gore had no influence on his research.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    God created the earth to provide a place for the human family to learn, progress and improve. God first created the earth and all living things spiritually, and all living things have great worth in His eyes.

    The earth and all things on it should be used responsibly to sustain the human family. However, all are stewards — not owners — over this earth and its bounty and will be accountable before God for what they do with His creations.

    Approaches to the environment must be prudent, realistic, balanced and consistent with the needs of the earth and of current and future generations, rather than pursuing the immediate vindication of personal desires or avowed rights. The earth and all life upon it are much more than items to be consumed or conserved. God intends His creations to be aesthetically pleasing to enliven the mind and spirit, and some portions are to be preserved. Making the earth ugly offends Him.

    The state of the human soul and the environment are interconnected, with each affecting and influencing the other. The earth, all living things and the expanse of the universe all eloquently witness of God.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

  • Copacetic Richfield, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 1:48 p.m.

    @ Esquire:

    What established facts can you offer as proof that "99% of science" agrees on this issue... as you stated? It would seem you are trying to bolster your argument with made-up stats.

    @ Marxist:

    Same question and assertion applies to you with your "99.99% established fact" statement. Where did you get that statistic from? Since when do made-up statistics from the top of one's head help to settle anything? It simply causes that person to lose credibility.

    Having to revert to such tactics demonstrates this is far from being a fully decided issue... except to closed minded individuals incapable to even seeing anything beyond than their own viewpoints.

    Also, you state that "Cruz often turns to the Bible whenever real life gets too tough". What proof have you of that statement? In actuality, he seldom turns to the Bible in political debates or anywhere else except possibly in church. Made up statements in an attempt to discredit others with whom you disagree is subversive and juvenile.

    This issue (and article) could and should be debated a lot less contentiously.

  • Copacetic Richfield, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    @ A Quaker:

    You've made some debatable contentions as if they were settled science. You provided a classic example of what this article is all about.

    There was probably higher CO2 levels during prehistoric times when there were massive volcanic eruptions contributing to the demise of dinosaurs.
    Other than that, how are CO2 levels determined from 10,000,000 years ago? Theories and guesstimates don't equate to established, undebatable science.

    It's truly interesting how some people perceive their own viewpoints as "settled science" when they no longer desire to debate that viewpoint or have a hard time doing so.

    Dr. Charles Krauthammer is a very intellegent and well educated man. His assertion to claims of settle science being a mockery to true science ring true. Scientific advancements are often driven from debate, even if one side can't see beyond their own personal perceptions. Many current environmentalists (and commenters on this page) seem totally closed minded to this.

    A person can be a true believer in man-made climate change without having to claim it's settled science. The obvious fact that additional data could eventually surface to either support or repute belies the "settled science" assertion.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    Republican science is the science you do to make yourself feel good, or to make sure you don't have to do anything at all. Or, maybe it's the OJ defense strategy; a shred of doubt is all you need to discredit everything.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    As with everything - the far left uses fuzzy logic to promote political causes. Global warming is one of those things. We get some half baked far fetched hysteria garbage from a known liar - Al Gore - and the left starts foaming at the mouth and barking and running in circles that the polar ice caps are melting and we have to shut down all coal fired plants and all drive electric smart cars. Anyone who dares cast doubt is labeled a flat earth idiot. Same ole same ole. Is it any wonder there is such a HUGE rift between the left and right in this country?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    Krauthammer “There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge,” Well of course, all science is theory. But in the sciences and in mathematical statistics we deal with likelihood. In math stat we actually have likehihood functions to express the likehihood something is a correct hypothesis. From this point of view, global warming is pretty close to being an established fact, like 99.99%.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Feb. 21, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    Some part of the atmospheric science is certain, including the near certainty that CO2 levels have risen over the past century. The respectable theory postulates that as this increases it will lead to a dramatic increase in global temperatures.

    However, the theory did not anticipate that global temperatures have not risen over the last 15 years. Surprisingly, there are a few glaciers that have grown. The uncertain aspect of this issue is that extraordinary volcanic eruptions could reverse this trend overnight.

    Beyond the question of settled science, the political solution proposed (national carbon credits) to solve the problem is the most questionable aspect of all.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    "On Feb. 20, Cruz told CNN’s chief congressional correspondent Dana Bash that global warming is not supported by scientific data." As to global warming itself - who needs science? The Arctic Ocean will soon be an open sea at least half of the year. The Greenland ice sheet is melting. The permafrost in Alaska is thawing out - it isn't perma any more. Sea level is rising at an alarming rate, threatening coastal communities and sea level countries. I can only conclude that Cruz is not only ignorant of science period, he can't make an unbiased observation of the physical world.

    Cruz also demonstrates the downside of religion in our civic life (though it has an upside too). Cruz like his father simply turns to the Bible when the real world gets too tough.

  • slcdenizen t-ville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    There's a vice grip on relenting to the impact of new information from the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party. This is no longer about political persuasion and resisting drastic in favor of gradual change in society, it's a blatant disregard for those engaged in scientific inquiry. When facts get in the way of the narrative, drop the facts first.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Feb. 21, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    Science isn't ever settled, on that point he's right. But that doesn't mean there can't be consensus on something. Consensus means that given the evidence, there is currently no reason not to believe something is the way it is. Gravity is a great example, and we've found it's not as simple as originally thought, but that doesn't change its fundamental reality. Consensus comes into play when the vast majority of scientists studying a given phenomenon agree that it's likely, unless new evidence can be provided to the contrary. Currently, the scientific community has reached consensus that global climate change is real, and it's likely man is the contributing factor.

    I think it's amusing that people believe people can't have that big of an impact. Humans have shown tremendous ability to completely demolish entire ecosystems throughout the world. It's true that we won't destroy the whole Earth, but the process of regeneration is one that won't be conducive to our current form of existence.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    "Contrary to all the theories that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. "

    Actually natural forcings, like the weakest solar cycle in a century, suggested we should've been cooling the past decade if there were no anthropogenic climate change, but instead we had the warmest decade in the modern record.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Feb. 21, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    We have scientific evidence from atmospheric monitoring posts that the world's CO2 level is higher now than any time in the last 10 million years. You can watch the arctic ice pack, the Greenland glacier, and for that matter, every glacier on the planet melt away practically in front of your eyes. Those glaciers were over 10,000 years old, and now they're disappearing. The sea level is rising. The added water vapor in the atmosphere, and the loss of an anchor point for the arctic vortex, is resulting in extraordinarily violent weather, with increasing frequency that seems to be accelerating.

    And you want to deny that any of this has anything to do with dumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Nothing to do with digging up and "liberating" all that carbon that Mother Nature took hundreds of millions of years to sequester beneath the surface so we could have a temperate biosphere?

    What is wrong with you? On what possible basis can you simply close your eyes to the evidence right in front of us? Industry financing?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    No field of science is ever completely settled. We don't know every detail of how gravity works, but that does not mean we should question the heliocentric theory of the solar system. The same is true for global warming, we don't know every detail, but we do know that it's happening, and we know that carbon emissions are the most significant cause.