Looking at disasters

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bettybeth Salt Lake City, UT
    July 16, 2014 3:00 p.m.

    Thank-you so much for your letter. I agree with your concerns about continued development of fossil fuels. If the true cost of fossil fuels was added to the price tag (environmental and health effects), I think there would be a much greater effort to develop alternative and renewable energy sources.

    There is a chapter of the Citizens' Climate Lobby that meets in Salt Lake City on a monthly basis. Check out their website for information about the organization and when and where the meetings are.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 15, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    "Record cold last winter!"

    For you it was the 45th warmest winter out of 119 years in Idaho. In the contiguous US it was the 36th coldest. Wisconsin had their 5th coldest (the most extreme in that direction). California had their record warmest. Globally it was in the top 15 warmest winters (and then globally we had the warmest April and May on record, en route to a top 10 warmest year on record).

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 15, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    @Sensible Scientist
    "Despite rising CO2 levels, global temperatures are flat."

    You cherrypicked a set of years to be convenient to you and ignored the overriding trend, and notably your set of years features the development of the weakest solar cycle in a century and even with that working against warming you only got a stalling of warming.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 14, 2014 11:16 p.m.

    Re: "I see the Climate Change Deniers are busily doing their thing. . . Denying . . . in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

    Yeah -- overwhelming evidence like the fact that today's temperatures are common in Earth's history, even in the relatively recent past history of the Holocene. During times of both high atmospheric CO2, and low.

    Or like the fact that climate science's models are completely inadequate to account for the past or predict the future.

    Or the robust, well-documented fact that science grant money determines study outcomes.

    The fact is this -- no one can accurately predict what Earth's temperature will be in two weeks, let alone what it will be in two decades, twoscore years, or two centuries. And, even if someone could, there's precious little that can be done to affect it, one way or the other.

    Liberals hate it, because they've hung all their freedom-sapping schemes on climate change, and it's just not providing them the crises they expected.

    Liberals simply lack the inclination to think for themselves, step away from comfortable orthodoxy, or buck their socialist overlords.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 14, 2014 8:35 p.m.

    I see the Climate Change Deniers are busily doing their thing. . . Denying . . . in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    For them, it's not about science. It's about faith.

    They are true believers.

    They Believe in Rush Limbaugh. They believe in His word.

    Why? . . . Because it's a lot easier than thinking for themselves.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 14, 2014 1:05 p.m.

    Re: "Without working cooperatively and compassionating here and abroad there will be widespread violence and wars . . . ."

    "Compassionating?" Hmmmmmm.

    Just so's you know -- even if we compassionate a lot, there will still be widespread violence and wars. In fact, in case you missed the last few days of news, widespread violence and wars are already here.

    Your "return-to-the-caves" train already left the station. 200 years ago.

    Today's choice is not between oil and peace or butterflies and cars. Rather, it's between liberty and savagery. Tree huggers have chosen savagery. Now their trying desperately to sell us on it.

    Here's hoping America's non-tree-hugging population, which comprises something north of 99% of America, will wake up and fight for, at least an American island of peace and liberty, rather than embrace the chaos and catastrophe that acceptance of environmental activism's goals will surely produce.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    July 14, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    @sensible scientist

    "False. Despite rising CO2 levels, global temperatures are flat."

    Ironically, neither sense nor science exists in your statement. Nor does honesty.

    The claim that 'global temperatures are flat' is only supported if you focus on a very narrow timeframe (10-15 years), and only if you ignore the longer trend, and only if you include global Air temperatures, and only while ignoring global water temperature data.

  • RightWingNut Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 13, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    David is obviously an expert in climatology. So David. If our climate now is bad, when was it good? What are we comparing our current climate to? Conditions that existed 100 years ago? 1000? 5000? 100,000? When were things just right? When exactly did the climate not "change?"

    You are smart. I am not. Please educate me.

  • Sensible Scientist Rexburg, ID
    July 13, 2014 3:35 p.m.

    The letter is based on false assertions, such as "Rapidly increasing use of fossil fuels is warming our air and acidifying our oceans at an alarming rate."

    False. Despite rising CO2 levels, global temperatures are flat.

    Also false: "It's driven not just by pursuit of comforts and faster travel, but more importantly by the fossil fuel corporation's relentless pursuit of profits." Oil companies, like all businesses, sell people what they want. They do so at the lowest profit margins of any business sector. They are owned by tens of thousands of shareholders -- you, me, and our neighbors -- who share in the profits. That's not "greed," it's how the economic world works.

    Another false assertion is that "Our earth faces monstrous storms, record heat and massive starvation." There are no such climate changes occurring. You can look it up.

    Relax -- the end ain't near.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 13, 2014 1:48 p.m.

    Que the barrage of junk science and "poverty producers" in, 3....2....1...

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    July 13, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    I can see how ocean currents melts ice. I can see it's been doing that for a long tine.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    July 13, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    Que the barrage by the "Earth-Haters" in, 3...2...1...

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 13, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    David Smith's logic is faulty. We know that everybody dies. We know that almost everybody eats carrots. We could draw the conclusion that eating carrots will kill us.

    NOBODY knows why the weather changes. David Smith has decided that his car's exhaust is causing the weather to change. Maybe he hasn't looked at photos of Salt Lake City, of Chicago, of New York, of San Francisco, of Denver in 1900 when everyone used coal or wood to heat their homes. There was much more pollution then than there is now. Did that cause the "Dust Bowl"?

    The one thing that we think we know is that the earth has had weather cycles. Studying the rings on trees that have lived for over 2,000 years shows a few of those cycles. Are we to surmise that man caused THOSE cycles? If not, why would we conclude that man is causing weather changes now?

  • Mountanman Victor, ID
    July 13, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Record cold last winter!

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    July 13, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    Oh the Irony of this letter. Fossil fuels feed many people and Robert Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich said the same thing and prophecies failed miserably.