What would Galileo do? The new EPA guidelines and global warming deniers

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Sven Morgan, UT
    June 16, 2014 10:22 p.m.


    You deny facts.

    Your so called "scientists" have a record of being WRONG. They were wrong about the increase in temperatures (We haven't warmed in 17 years); they were wrong about the Arctic sea ice being gone by 2014-2015 (it's actually grown by 60%); they were wrong about the increase in killer storms and hurricanes (didn't happen).

    The Left also has a proven track record of LYING and misrepresenting the facts in order to push the hoax of AGW. The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit's leaked documents and e-mails proved their "researchers" were cooking their data in order to show warming where there was none. Our leftist media also likes to do their part by publishing bogus photos to try and push the myth of AGW.

    For people like you who lack critical thinking, AGW is a religion. For Marxists like Obama, it is a way to control the people. AGW sounds so much better than "Marxism", or "totalitarianism."

    Sadly, you are oblivious to the sacrifices that your religion (AGW) is going to require of you. The new EPA regulations are just the beginning. This is Obama's "fundamental transformation of our nation."

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2014 5:54 p.m.

    Here are the stages of denialism in response to a major problem. It's clearly applicable to climate change, but also to civil rights struggles (race, sex, sexual orientation), HIV/AIDS, marriage equality, automobile safety, and a host of other issues. It seems to me the typical timeline is 20-30 years.

    A. Deny there is a problem.
    B. Concede there is a problem, but deny culpability.
    C. Concede culpability, but deny ability to fix the problem.
    D. Concede ability to fix the problem, but claim it costs too much.
    E. Concede that the fix is affordable.

    From here it can go two ways:
    F1. If it's too late to fix the problem, complain that the problem could have been fixed if only people had started working on it sooner.
    F2. If not too late to fix the problem, take credit for recognizing the problem in the first place.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2014 5:52 p.m.

    RG: "@ airnaut: you asked for my position on evolution. Not really related to AGW but..."

    I see airnaut's question as relevant because there is a very high correlation (in my observation of various discussion boards) between skepticism of evolutionary theory and skepticism of AGW (and vice versa, also with credence of both). Many of the leading creationist organizations (e.g. AIG, Discovery Institute) are also AGW denialists. I see creationists use similar modes of thinking as many AGW skeptics. For example, they often display a lack of understanding of how science works as a process, they often misuse fundamental principles (e.g. the laws of thermodynamics), they cherry pick data and quote mine publications, and they appeal to untestable supernatural mechanisms. Arguments from incredulity abound. I think it is natural that one would be curious how a science educator who is an AGW skeptic would approach evolution. For many, the ideas are in opposition and for similar reasons.

    RG: "I don’t require my students to 'toe the line' to pass my class, however. They can make up their own minds, but they must know how evolution works."

    Glad to see you can differentiate in your teaching.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2014 7:01 a.m.

    Yet more evidence of global warming from the AGU:

    "California’s winter tule fog — hated by drivers, but needed by fruit and nut trees — has declined dramatically over the past three decades, raising a red flag for the state’s multibillion dollar agricultural industry, according to new research."

  • Demosthenes Rexburg, ID
    June 15, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    You know, it would be valid to make the exact same arguments against the IPCC and its devotees as this author makes against "deniers." In fact, some very credible climate scientists have done so quite convincingly.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    June 15, 2014 12:19 p.m.

    @high school fan:

    The Associated Press have a history of using bogus/fraudulent photos in their goal of pushing the hoax of AGW.

    In 2013 the AP published a picture of what was supposed to be a large lake that formed at the North Pole due to Global Warming. Unfortunately, there were couple of problems with this photo: 1) It wasn't a lake, but rather a small melt pond which are common, and form naturally every summer on Arctic ice floes, and 2) The ice floe that contained this small melt pond wasn't even at the North Pole, but had drifted several hundred miles south.

    AP's retraction:

    "Editors, photo editors, and photo librarians – please eliminate AP photo NY109 that was sent on Saturday, July 27, 2013. The caption inaccurately stated that 'the shallow meltwater lake is occurring due to an unusually warm period.' In fact, the water accumulates in this way every summer. In addition, the images do not necessarily show conditions at the North Pole, because the weather buoy carrying the camera used by the North Pole Environmental Observatory has drifted hundreds of miles from its original position, which was a few dozen miles from the North Pole."

    Nuff said.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    June 15, 2014 6:17 a.m.

    But please you a proper photo since nowhere in the United States will you find a power plant spewing pollution into the air as this is portrayed to be doing. Take away the cloudy day and the entire picture presentation would change. If this is in this country then it is an old photo.
    Just give an accurate picture please since this country has come along way in the last thirty years.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 14, 2014 11:40 p.m.

    It is ironic that Barker invokes Galileo. Galileo's contribution to science was to elevate direct observation above the theoretical model. When the two disagree, direct observation holds the trump card.

    Today we have climate models predicting catastrophe, contradicted by the thermometer. Barker sides with theoretical models that have already been proven false.

    The anti-Galileo.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    June 14, 2014 11:16 p.m.

    One way the Left tries to shut global warming skeptics up, is the call them “deniers.” I’ve learned that when they resort to this term, they’ve already lost the argument, and must, resort to these silly, sophomoric, ad hominem attacks. This is necessary when the science and facts don’t back up your assertions.

    Let's talk about deniers, shall we?

    * The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, released early this spring, showed no warming for the past 17 years! Basically, their flawed models grossly overestimated any warming we were supposed to have had.

    * We were told in 2012 by the AGW “experts” that arctic sea ice would be gone by 2015. It’s actually grown by 60%.

    * We were told of the certainty of an increase in deadly storms due to AGW. Didn’t happen.

    * Over 1,000 e-mails and 70+ leaked documents originating from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in England, showed that their "scientific" data was being cooked to show warming, where there was no warming.

    This hoax is being propagated to push the new economy crippling regulations by the EPA; completing Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of our nation.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 14, 2014 11:15 p.m.

    Re: Pops "Skeptics say we should focus our efforts and resources on known problems and deal with climate change if and when it happens, as it doesn't seem at all likely based on the data we have collected."

    Climate change is happening now.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 14, 2014 11:09 p.m.

    Re: Patriot "The gross exaggeration of the left regarding climate change is more about politiics than it is science to be sure. "

    From my reading of environmental literature I don't believe even a significant minority of "environmentalists" are leftist. My perspective it leftist and I can tell.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 14, 2014 9:51 p.m.

    Virginia Beach, VA

    From the responses, I see that Global Warming Deniers are fighting to the last breath.

    There used to a lot of Flat Earthers back in the day too, and there are still a few around.

    Global Warming deniers will probably follow that same path, with isolated pockets of them existing for generations.

    They are quite the phenomenon, and probably deserving of a study.
    7:30 a.m. June 14, 2014


    Great post as usual.

    Flat Earth,
    Global warming deniers...

    Right along side --
    Moon Landings hoxes,
    Chemical Contrails,
    Civil Rights being a Communist take over,
    Flouride in the water being Government mind control.

    Funny --
    They always been tied to the uber-far-right for decades.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 14, 2014 9:35 p.m.

    Pops.... I can't answer to what extent CO2 is having( or even methane), but I can see the evidence as it impacts my job. For example, there is this one web site that tries to sell that global warming isn't happening, that actually it is global cooling that is going on.... and they point to Ice Sheet levels in the Arctic.

    But this is how it is impacting my work in real life. We had a client that wanted to put up a new rig in a newly opened area of the arctic shelf. The issue we ran into last summer was that arctic tundra had thawed so much that it would no longer support the weight of the rig. We rely on a frozen sub surface to provide a weight bering foundation. But the tundra thawed more than normal... and the rig had to be pulled out and brought south for the winter.

    The side effect is there is a lot of CO2 and Methane trapped by the frozen tundra. As the tundra thaws, these gases escape greater amounts. Over a decade, methane breaks down and in part produces CO2. And the cycle continues.

    June 14, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    This article is propaganda at its finest, with a large dose of hypocrisy thrown in for good measure.

    I'll restate the science. It is well-known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The amount of warming due to a doubling of CO2 is easily calculated, all other things being equal. But all other things are not equal, and climate researchers have been trying for decades to figure out how the rest of the climate system responds to increasing CO2. Alarmists claim that positive feedbacks will result in catastrophic climate change and even thermal runaway, and point to their computer models as proof. Skeptics point to data from the real world, which disagree with the computer models and fail to show any discernible influence from increases in atmospheric CO2. Alarmists say we should act just in case they happen to be right. Skeptics say we should focus our efforts and resources on known problems and deal with climate change if and when it happens, as it doesn't seem at all likely based on the data we have collected.

    Then there's the politics - "ugly" is the only word that comes to mind to describe that.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    June 14, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    @ GaryO:
    In 50 years, high school students studying history will write essays analyzing how so many people could be duped into believing in the AGW scare -- not just that the earth has warmed (which it has, and which it always has, between cooling periods, and even the "deniers" accept that there are natural heating/cooling cycles, in fact, it is the AGW proponents who seem to forget about these natural cycles) -- but that people believed in computer climate models that tried to predict climate a hundred years in advance, but cannot explain the current data including the 15 years of no warming. Go back 10 or 15 years, and read the predictions that our coasts were all supposed to be underwater by now. Didn't happen. Plus, the predictions of 15 years ago said we had 5 years to fix it, or it was forever too late. According to those predictions, we shouldn't bother now, since it is too late. About every year, we are told we have five more years to fix it. (Boy who cried wolf.) If we will yet warm, it would be more efficient to plan for warmth than try to stop it.

  • Mountanman Victor, ID
    June 14, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    Tyler. When you see a truck transporting food to your grocery store with solar panels get back to me, ok?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 14, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    From the responses, I see that Global Warming Deniers are fighting to the last breath.

    There used to a lot of Flat Earthers back in the day too, and there are still a few around.

    Global Warming deniers will probably follow that same path, with isolated pockets of them existing for generations.

    They are quite the phenomenon, and probably deserving of a study.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 13, 2014 9:57 p.m.

    @Thid Barker – “When the supply of energy (or anything else is decreased) and the demand stays the same or increases, the prices ALWAYS increase commensurate to the gap!”

    So you passed Econ 101, but then did you move on to Econ 201… the class where they teach you that as the price of one product rises (e.g., oil) other products (e.g., natural gas, solar, wind) become relatively cheaper inducing a substitution effect? Add to that the fact that as demand increases for the other products production increases, economies of scale are realized and they becomes cheaper still.

    With a revenue neutral carbon tax this is the only economic effects we’re likely to see (household will be no poorer) and this increase in demand for alternative energy will drive innovation and further declines in cost.

    And we help the environment, make oil sheiks and oligarchs poorer, reduce the wealth and influence of countries that hate us, and become more energy independent.

    I fail to see your problem with any of this…

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    June 13, 2014 9:55 p.m.

    It takes power plants to produce energy so that this story can be on the internet, so climate change nuts can comment that the world is comming to an end. They are all probably sitting by an air conditioner, and then they will get in their energy guzzling cars to go to the store. They are a bunch of feel good hypocrites.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 13, 2014 8:11 p.m.

    "Mary Barker - a liberal - teaches political science at Syracuse University’ and that makes her an expert on climate change?"

    No, it makes her an expert on the political influences effecting the discussions.

    "The radical EPA is a prime example ...." Radical and EPA.... pretty much enough to stop listening right there.

    " However what liberals love to do is create their own crisis... "

    Kind of like the NRA and their constant cries that storm troopers are on their way to take our guns away.

    Listen Patriot... you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, using hyperbably and exaggerations to make a point. I don't debate your point that there are those who are trying to use science to promote their political and social agendas. But lets not be part of the problem, lets bring reason into the middle.

    @HAHAHA - "he bigger burden of proof becomes the obligation of the denier. " Ummmm, yep. You nailed it. If you have a competing theory that goes against what is accepted as the norm... yep, the burden of proof and defending your theory is up to you...

  • Bob Speiser Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2014 7:46 p.m.

    What a splendid op-ed. We need to find ways to burn less fossil fuel. Regulation, as the EPA has proposed, is one way, certainly a step in the right direction. Two days ago, in another strong op-ed in this paper, Gerald Elias advanced another proposal: to put a fee on carbon at the source (wellhead, mine, or port of entry) and return the proceeds, as a kind of dividend, equally to households. The dividend would more than offset rising costs for most of us. The fee would tilt the market, without further intervention from the government, strongly in favor of clean energy development.

    We need to find good ways to get moving -- climate change is not just real -- it's an urgent challenge that we need to meet.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    June 13, 2014 7:33 p.m.

    Kent De Forrest. Even liberals are forced to live by the economic laws of supply and demand. When the supply of energy (or anything else is decreased) and the demand stays the same or increases, the prices ALWAYS increase commensurate to the gap! We need energy to produce food and every other life sustaining commodity and to transport it and whether you like it or not, we are STILL very much dependent on fossil fuels! Poor people who can least afford higher costs of living will suffer the most and no amount of rhetoric from the chamber of commerce can change that one iota! Food prices and unemployment will increase markedly because of this fooling misguided decision by our "leaders". Stay tuned for the realities of economics!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 13, 2014 5:55 p.m.

    Cedar Hills, UT

    Bruce R McKonkie made a key observation once when he said that extremism in any form is bad.


    You realize that this applies just as much to
    Gun rights for anything,
    No abortions, ever, for any reason,
    The Earth is 6,000 years old,
    God's going to come and clean up the Earth,
    Global Warming deniers.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    June 13, 2014 5:44 p.m.

    In other words, as with all things dealing with the leftwing, everybody else has to make the allowance for their double standard. The writer goes on and on with a pompous, wordy claim that boils down to the idea that the bigger burden of proof becomes the obligation of the denier. Apparently because of some unspoken all knowing theory, that the pompous and arrogant are just smarter the everyone else. And yeah you can complain, but it really always comes down to politics. It is 98% of the same crowd, coming down on opposite sides of the issue.
    Furthermore, if we just pretended for a minute, that the climate alarmists are correct, what is the value of us changing our lifestyle and economy? If what you claim is true, the do-gooders need to be over in China and India taking charge of their lifestyles and economies. After-all, they are the biggest culprits of producing global warming now and in the future.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 13, 2014 5:06 p.m.

    What an excellent article – thank you DN for printing it (I’m pleasantly surprised).

    But I’d bet a year’s pay that its utterly sound logic won’t change the mind of one denier whose mind is already made up.

    Seriously, what is it about partisans that make them so completely impervious to logic and reason?

    Really… I want to know… can anyone please explain it?

    Oh, and check out David Brin’s article if you want more details on how to tell climate skeptics from climate deniers.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2014 4:18 p.m.

    @The Rock
    "Climate Gate involving East Anglia University demonstrated that the data has been massively manipulated."

    There are two global satellite datasets in operation since the mid to late 70s, RSS and UAH. Many climate skeptics (including the managers of UAH actually) argue that satellite datasets are superior because you have less to worry about when it comes to things like variable density of site locations etc. One would expect that if the non-satellite records were faulty they'd have trendlines far from those satellite records. However, the allegedly "massively manipulated" CRU dataset, along with both NOAA and NASA datasets, have trendlines during the satellite era that is in between those two satellite datasets.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 13, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    Mary Barker - a liberal - teaches political science at Syracuse University’ and that makes her an expert on climate change? This is laughable. Listening to this liberal noise reminds me of an atheist speaking about those crazy blievers ...mocking anyone who doesn't swallow his atheistic babble. The gross exaggeration of the left regarding climate change is more about politiics than it is science to be sure. The radical EPA is a prime example of the non-science methods used to decide enviornmental policy. As I said - the majority of noise from the left regarding climate change has little to do with saving our environment and more to do with driving socialist politcal policy. Bruce R McKonkie made a key observation once when he said that extremism in any form is bad. Our current goverment is the poster child of extremism and it is all bad!! Carbon emmisions are bad - that's a no brainer and that is why power plants have scrubbers on their stacks. However what liberals love to do is create their own crisis with a mixture of some science and a heavy dose of poltical propoganda and then demonize anyone who pushes back.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    "What makes today’s scientists wiser than those in the 1970s who told us a new ice age was coming? "

    Back in the 70s the majority of climate papers were still saying warming. There was never any global cooling consensus. The cooling claims came from the anthropogenic aerosol emissions, which do have a cooling effect (think hairspray, etc) and that was a real issue at the time. However, in the 70s we started strongly regulating them because they were also a contributor to our massive urban pollution "global dimming" problem (this is why the air today, while quite bad, is still better than it was 30 years ago).

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    June 13, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    Buena Vista, VA
    @ airnaut: you asked for my position on evolution. Not really related to AGW but:


    I asked that because for someone who believes in evolution - by your own definition - as intelligent design [things happen naturally, but God designed it that way...]

    Can not apply that same line of "thinking" to AGW.

    If we as mortal mankind can now change natural laws of evolution via, modern medicine, anti-biotics, heart and lung transplants, neuro-natal surgeries and deliveries, ect...

    Why are you being so close minded as to the possibility that Man - by dumping toxins into our enviroment - can not have any effect on the environment?

    Tell you what - Try a 2nd grade experiement.

    Make a terrarium.
    Introduce known toxins - upset the balance of any element,
    and see if the plants can "evolve" fast enough and adapt to keep from dying.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    June 13, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    @ Roland Kayser

    I have never met anyone who heard of a debate before they heard that the debate was over.
    When that is how you start the conversation it is clear that they don't want a debate.

    Climate Gate involving East Anglia University demonstrated that the data has been massively manipulated.

    When researching greenhouse gases you have to start by asking one thing: "What do greenhouse gases do?" They don't create heat, they do retain heat. Water vapor (humidity) is the most significant greenhouse gas on the planet. Humid areas don't cool down at night. Dry desert areas do.

    How do we test for greenhouse gases? We look at the difference between the high and low temperatures (temperature differential or TD).

    I personally studied this. Desert towns were selected (to factor out humidity), well inland from the coast and above 2000 ft in elevation. I chose July 1st thru 10 and looked at the years 1975 through 2010 in 5 year increments. Only sunny days were included to stabilize the results.

    The TD was between 31.4 and 31.6 degrees F. The TD was stable. Conclusion: Global Warming is a Myth and I have the data to back it up.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 13, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    An excellent and well thought out op ed. Thanks to DN for publishing it.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    June 13, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    @ airnaut: you asked for my position on evolution. Not really related to AGW but: The evidence for evolution is incredibly strong, and I believe it happened. However, I also believe that God created the earth and its lifeforms. I don’t claim to know the exact way these two beliefs fit together. I am a bit unsure on how Adam’s body came to be, because I like Bruce R. McConkie’s literal interpretation of Moses 6:22. I agree with NIH director Francis Collins, an evolutionist, former atheist, and current Christian in many ways. I loved his books on the subject: The Language of God and The Language of Science and Faith. Unlike some biology teachers, I don’t require my students to “toe the line” to pass my class, however. They can make up their own minds, but they must know how evolution works.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    June 13, 2014 2:38 p.m.

    @Utah Blue Devil,
    Gore is only an example of those who zealously promote the AGW hypothesis. I did not inject him into the debate, as you suggested; he injected himself, as have many others who know little about the subject. As you admit, he is NOT a scientist, and it shows. The reason he is still important is that he is the one who popularized the saying “the debate is over.” It is NOT over. Google Wallace Mayo’s May 17 Roanoke Times column (Mayo is a member of the American Meteorological Society) debunking the “97% of scientists agree with AGW” argument. What makes today’s scientists wiser than those in the 1970s who told us a new ice age was coming? Their ideas are based on climate models which have FAILED to predict our current temps or absence of warming for 15 years.

    One other issue worth addressing is: Is warming (if it is happening) all bad? Sure it can cause all kinds of harm, but it will prevent all kinds of harm caused now by cold. I've seen studies where it will be a net benefit.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 13, 2014 2:13 p.m.

    To the Rock: If the first thing you heard about global warming was that the debate was over, then you didn't listen to anything for decades. Nobel Prize winning Swedish physicist Svante Arrenhuis showed mathematically that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to increased surface temperatures. He did this in 1896. A scientific panel presented a report on the dangers of global warming to president Lyndon Johnson. There have been 20,000+ studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals in the decades since then.

    So after many decades of research, we can say the debate is over. Global warming is occurring, it is being either caused by, or greatly exacerbated by, human activity. The only real debate is about how bad things might get. If you didn't start paying attention till recently that's no excuse.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    June 13, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    re: Tucket

    You may want to research the claim that total Antarctica ice is increasing.

    There definitely is an increase in the seasonal SEA ICE that surrounds the much more massive LAND ICE of Antarctica.

    It appears that the loss in land ice is exceeding the sea ice gains for a net loss in Antarctica ice, but don't take my work for it there is plenty of information about it on the internet.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    June 13, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    What would Galileo do? The new EPA guidelines and global warming deniers
    By Mary Barker

    For the Deseret News

    [The most (only?) level headed reporter at the Deseret News -- Thanks Mary!]


    Buena Vista, VA
    I teach college biology. In my nonmajor class we also discuss how science is done. When politics is mixed in, science suffers.

    [Interesting, You do not believe in Global Wrming, fine - you have your opinion --
    as a "Scientist" and teaching biology in college --
    I have to know your Scientific posititon regarding Evolution...]

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    June 13, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    There was a report by 50 scientists who agreed 97% on global warming. Thousands of others vote for or against the idea of global warming. I would rather have warming than cooling. lt may also be true that alternatives such as photovoltaic is coming on strong and some interesting research on energy storage. I would love to have my own home energy and storage independent of the power company. I am all for research in this direction. But how do I respond to reports of antarctic melting when the antarctic in other areas shows the greatest ice coverage in history. Or to reports of increased tornadoes in Oklahoma when there are fewer.?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 13, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    Congratulations to the DNews for including the reasoned arguments of Mary Barker. A rare and delightful exception to the typical barrage of right-wing nuttiness that graces your pages.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    June 13, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    "... deniers try to minimize the issue and attack the scientific enterprise. Mocking is common. "

    Very true. Calling those who do not believe in "Climate Change" deniers is mocking.

    The very first thing I ever heard about global warming was "the debate is over". When one party starts a debate by saying the debate is over, I get suspicious.
    Turn out that those who fund climate research only give grants to researchers who produce the desired results. In a few years all researchers, doing active research all agree, "There is Global Warming and it is caused by man" (or else I would lose my job).

    I could go on, but why.

    I wish the Deseret News would simply drop the name calling by stop using the term "Climate Denier". It is an attempt to mock and discredit by calling up a reference to holocaust deniers. Such name calling is beneath the dignity of any reputable newspaper.

  • joeandrade Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    Thank you, Mary Barker, Barry Bickmore, and the many others doing what they can to bring some sense and action to the problem.

    The good news is that most of the kids - the youth - understand. They may keep quiet, but they are tired of hearing ideologies, obsolete assumptions, and reality denial from their parents, many of their teachers, many of their bishops and priests, and most of our state so-called leaders. The kids know better - they'll come through.

    Keep up the good work.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 13, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    @Liberal Ted: "Not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."--Source: US Geological Survey

    Had you been writing prior to the industrial revolution, you would have been correct. At that point volcanic CO2 emissions did exceed that of human activity.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 13, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    RG.... the problem is that you did eactly what you complain about by injecting Al Gore into the issue. He hasn't been on the forefront of this issue for some time now. Resurrecting his name is doing exactly what you claim you don't want - inserting politics into the fray. He is not a scientist, never claimed to be a scientist - even after staying at a Holiday Inn.

    Al Gore is irrelevant. He is a politician, and that is it.

    We know man impacts the environment. This is not in debate. It is to what extent, and the implications of that impact are what is being debated. We know Fukashima has a long term impact on that part of Japan. We know the impact of deceased wetlands on water quality. We know the harm airborne and waterborne mercury has. We know the impacts of smog to the respirator system. There is plenty we agree upon - debating Al Gore is totally unproductive.

    We don't know the source, nor the long term impact of global warming. And that is why further research is the justified thing to do.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    June 13, 2014 9:08 a.m.


    Even the Chamber of Commerce study couldn't come up with those "massive" cost of living increases, though I'm sure they tried. This is the sort of fear-mongering conservatives are using to try to keep us on the drill, baby, drill program big oil wants.

    Lots of people, including some commenters here, claim there is still a big debate going on. But that debate is all going on in a small corner of conservative politics. The scientists are strangely almost unanimous on the issue, and those few studies that point the other direction usually end up being funded by Exxon-Mobil and its friends. Surprise. Barry Bickmore, cited in this article, is a scientist who has looked at the actual science, not simply what is being reported in the news. I'll trust him on this one.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    The trouble with "climate change" is the lack of scientific research and having most scientists on board. Not everyone's research matches up. There are too many holes and conflicts in the argument. The other issue is, a scientist can explain how something is happening and other scientists can look at the same data and duplicate it. You look for holes in arguments. Once it is nearly impossible to find a hole, then it is considered fact, until someone can prove otherwise.

    The fact is there is little data and consensus among scientist on what if anything is happening. They're still trying to figure out if farting cows are the problem. A volcano produces more emissions than humans. Why don't we focus on plugging up a volcano?

    The issue I have, is the climate change side is making big money off the federal government, which is borrowing money on our backs to pay for programs that have had zero progress. We can store millions of songs on a phone, but, can't figure out a better battery or solar power? Exactly what have they been doing with the money?

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    June 13, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    I teach college biology. In my nonmajor class we also discuss how science is done. When politics is mixed in, science suffers. Many scientists support AGW because they must "toe the line" to be accepted by peers or even employed. The IPCC reports are authored by bureaucrats, not scientists, many of whom disagree with the conclusions. It is true, some "deniers" may be ignoring evidence, but that is at least as true for ardent supporters, like Gore, who will not even debate the issue (hmm, I wonder what he is afraid of?) Debate is scientific, but refusal to debate is not scientific. Fearmongering is not scientific. Blaming every weather anomaly (too warm, too cold, etc) on AGW is not scientific, since it is not falsifiable. So many people today cite hurricane Sandy as "proof" of AGW. It is no such thing. It was only a category I. Hurricanes have always existed. Contrary to Gore's predictions, hurricanes have DEcreased. The computer climate models have been wrong. They don't explain the 15 years of nonwarming we've had. The gross overstatements of AGW supporters have convinced many skeptics to react by becoming deniers.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 13, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    Excellent editorial and an accurate description of deniers and so many people of power in the GOP. The GOP has become the party where ignorance is revered and a badge of honor. Teddy Roosevelt would have nothing to do with today's GOP.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    June 13, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    The unfortunate results of these EPA restrictions on energy production will be massive increases in the cost of living, especially for food and higher unemployment (your job will be affected as well)! The poor of the earth will be effected most! You might need your food storage after all, compliments of a climate change hoax! So unnecessary and so contrived, driven by junk science and political agendas! Brace yourselves folks, its going to be very difficult to eat and stay warm.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    June 13, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    American corporations have a long history of paying slick public relations spokesmen and outlier scientists to promote dangerous products.

    The good old petroleum industry fought off efforts to remove the potent neurotoxin lead in gasoline, until 1995. They funded scientists to do alternative research showing that lead was a naturally occurring part of our environment.

    Similar tactics were used to allay public fears about the dangers of smoking. (warning label in 1966), asbestos (partially banned in 1989) and lead in paint. (mostly banned in 1978)

    It is critical that public opinion be shaped by the best data available, and not by pr campaigns funded by greedy special interests.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    June 13, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    Yes science needs skeptics. Especially when science and politics are so closely mingled.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    June 13, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    Exactly. Thank you.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 13, 2014 6:20 a.m.

    Wow....I am surprised. A well thought out position on climate change on the DN. I think all scientist can agree something is going on. It is the natural state of the planet... change. What is most in debate is cause, mans contribution to that cause (if any), and what we should do about it.

    Unfortunately politics gets involved here.... and logic, reasoning, and scientific method all get tossed in exchange for pithy slogans and agenda driven rhetoric. There is considerable yet we need to know, but at the same time there is plenty of actionable evidence to which we should be responding to. We know lead, mercury, all sorts of heavy metals, all are bad for people and the environment. Lets act on what we know, and objectively research what we don't.... and leave political aspirations and agendas out of it.