Letter: Energy ruse

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Aug. 25, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    There may be local shrinking of west Antarctica ice, but the overall ice pack has been growing since 1979 despite talk of global warming and reached high a record a few days ago. 90% of the fresh water of the planet is in Antarctica. The ice is 5-6 miles thick. There may be a mild global warming trend, the problem is why is there so much turmoil and lying in it. THe UN exaggerated 113 out of 117 reports. The best thing we can do is have a powerful robust economy which allows more research on alternates. I would recommend Tier 3 gasoline (less sulfur).

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 23, 2014 4:52 p.m.

    Pay no attention to the cooling earth, [for 17 years now], the science is settled.

    Who are you going to believe ? ... 97% of climate scientists, or the actual temperature of the earth?

    Aug. 23, 2014 5:22 a.m.

    You know, the real travesty of the global warming hoax is that it is distracting us from real problems for which we could be providing real solutions.

    Yes, it's a hoax of epic proportions. What does the science say? It clearly and unmistakably says there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. The anecdotal "evidence" (see above) is not how science works. Science consists of collecting data and drawing conclusions supported by the data. Once again, the conclusion from the data is this: there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.

    Now if you want to talk about Svensmark's cosmic ray theory, that's interesting, because there is actually a lot of correlation in the data. But he struggles to get funding because what he's doing isn't politically correct and the purse strings for climate research are controlled by politicians.

    Sorry to interrupt the propaganda, er, debate. As you were.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 22, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    To "Tyler D" actually, there is more money spent by government to promote the idea of government warming than by private businesses. According to the GAO, in 2010 $8.8 billion was spent by the US government for "Climate Change Research". The best estimates I could find show that private corporations spend $1 billion/yr in research and education showing that climate change is natural.

    Which trough is going to fund your research better, the trickle from private companies or the flood of money from the federal government?

    Also, you have not addressed the issue. what is the difference between a scientist producing the desired results for a private business and a scientist producing the desired results for a government? In terms of funding, it is much easier and lucrative to get government funding than private funding, so why wouldn't a scientist seek out the government money and report back to the government what it wants to hear?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 22, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701 – “what is the difference between a scientist…?”

    The former has a direct and in some cases massive conflict of interest. You need to research how much money the fossil fuel industry is pouring into efforts to prove AGW is false. If some hot shot scientist were able to do such a thing he would be set for life. So far none has, which is telling.

    To assume any sort of equivalency on the part of government or university funded scientists is a big stretch.

    1st, the grant money they receive for any one research project is relatively small. 2nd, you have to show that the grant money is given only on the condition that they produce a “desired result.” And 3rd you need to show that this sort of corruption occurs across tens of thousands of scientists in more than 100 countries around the world.

    If that were so it would be a conspiracy of a complexity and magnitude the world has never seen.

    PS – science is much more geographically diverse and rigorous than it was in the 30’s.

    Reached comment limit…

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 22, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    To "Tyler D" so what is the difference between a scientist producing the desired results for a private business and a scientist producing the desired results for a government?

    With the government looking for more ways to control businesses and give their favored people advantages, how do we know that the government scientists are not giving politicians bad information so that the funding doesn't stop?

    Also, FYI, in the 1930's and 1940's the government endorsed smoking citing all sorts of questionable research saying it was good. How do we know that we are not being lied to again by the government?

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Aug. 22, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    For those of your denying the melting of the polar ice cap, do a google search and read how now the U.S. military is concerned about the increasing shipping north of Canada and how that is creating security risks as Russia's navy increases its presence in the wake of those ice-free waters.

    I read not long ago that South Korea is now taking advantage of the ice-free northern shipping lanes to ship cars to America... at least some companies are making a profit off climate change, even if conservatives in America deny it.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Aug. 21, 2014 4:24 p.m.

    4 foot sea rise? I'll take that bet. 2 bits is exactly right. We already have more then enough regulation here, we don't need to encroach anymore on personal freedom. Be the example. Show and practice what you preach, unlike algore. Most persons are already living clean lifestyles, don't let envy take over your better judgement. We have free riders in every segment of society, so don't worry about that. Finally, go preach your GW gospel in China and India. They love restrictions on freedom, and those countries are going to be causing much more GW then the United States could ever dream about.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 21, 2014 3:48 p.m.

    @2 bits – “We're arguing about the need for a boogey-man”

    Fair enough – however AGW won’t be mitigated by only some people doing the right while others drive Hummers. In econ jargon this is both the problem of externalities and the free rider problem.

    @Redshirt1701 – “49 of 50 doctors that work for the tobacco industry?”

    You make an excellent case for why we should heavily discount any opinions from “experts” who are employed by the very industry/commodity we are seeking to regulate… thanks.

    @Mike Richards – “those who believe Al Gore who have been hoodwinked.”

    Your point fails for two reasons – 1st, who cares what Al Gore thinks? He’s a private citizen and as far as I know has no expertise in climate science.

    2nd, you assume that AGW rests on the notion of straight-line linear increases in temperature, but that’s not how the climate works. Climate change looks more like the stock market with lots of short term ups and downs.

    What’s relevant is the long term trend, which in the case of the climate is in the direction of warming (again, at a rate unprecedented in nature).

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 21, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    To "Tyler D" would you listen to 49 of 50 doctors that work for the tobacco industry that tell you smoking is good?

    Actually there are quite a few examples of how the climate change over the past 100 years is natural. Mars, Triton, and other planets and moons within our solar system have been undergoing warming at the same time the Earth has. Since those other bodies within the solar system do not have people on them, how do you explain the warming in the absence of man's influence?

    To continue the Doctor analogy, would you trust the 49 of 50 doctors that told you to use leeches to cure your illness? That is what you want us to do with the climate. You want us to trust scientists that are guessing and do not have a model that can reliably estimate global temperatures.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 3:08 p.m.

    We're arguing about the need for a boogey-man, or force, or a threat, in order to do the right thing.

    I don't need it. Some do. Some people believe in doing the right thing because it's the right thing, others say do the right thing because we/government boogey-man mandates it.

    My litmus test used to be seat belts. Smart people do it because it could save their life. Others won't do it unless it's the law. They won't do it to save their life... but they will to avoid a ticket. (smart huh)

    Same for smoking, drinking, speeding, etc... Some people would do the smart thing even without those laws.

    Same with AGW. I think smart people will take care of the planet because it will improve their quality of life and it's the right thing to do (not because the government or Democrats mandated it).

    If you can't take care of the planet because it could save your quality of life.... will you do it to make Al Gore and his ilk happy??

    Some people need the boogey man... I don't. Some evidently do...

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 21, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    When lies are told, there are always a certain percentage of the population who believe those lies. In this case, it is those who believe Al Gore who have been hoodwinked. His "prognostications" have not happened. He told us that the artic ice mass would be gone by 2013. Surprise! It's still there. He showed us photos of polar bears on small ice floes. Surprise! Polar bears have used small ice floes as resting stations as long as human beings have observed that phenomena. He told us that we would all die if we didn't buy into his global warming (carbon tax) theory. Surprise! We're still here and he still jets around the world in his carbon emitting private jets - telling us what to do but not doing it himself.

    Anyone of us who lived through the cold-war knew how the Communist leaders lived lives of splendor while their subjects suffered can see the parallels. Al Gore, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid fly around in splendor and tell us what to do as they do the opposite.

    Some leaders they are! If global warming were a problem, wouldn't they ground their jets?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 21, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    @2 bits – “Along with all the propaganda they will get about AGW from the Left”

    So is it safe to say your issue is more with the messenger than with the message (which I see as a scientific one and personally try to listen exclusively to those experts. I could care less what Al Gore thinks… never liked him much anyway).

    And as I’ve said to you before, I understand (and agree to some extent) with your points about global government, etc., but I think it’s far more productive to keep the two issues separate (i.e., issue #1 “is AGW real?” issue #2 “how do we mitigate it?”).

    @2 bits – “Was this an episode on MSNBC or something?”

    Not sure… hardly ever watch that channel. I use the doctor analogy though because it’s remarkably apt and I believe equally obvious that pouring pollutants into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates will make the world less healthy.

    @2 bits – “Just like I live the most clean life I can regarding the environment”

    So what are we arguing about?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    “I'm betting quality of life won't even be close to what we enjoy today” – I agree with you; we can thank BO for that.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    I'm pretty sure every scientist and even the left-wing media (even Al Gore) know that glaciers have come and gone many times in Earth's history. That's why they are careful not to mention it in their movies and stuff about AGW.

    I just want people to read about it, know about it, and think about it. Along with all the propaganda they will get about AGW from the Left (because we NEED Global Government, and we NEED to force people to live the way we do)...


    As for the 50 doctors thing. Somebody brings this up every time. Was this an episode on MSNBC or something? It seems like you are all trained to bring the exact same teaching aid...

    I don't need a doctor telling me I need a good diet/lifestyle or I will get sick... that is obvious. I would do it even without the threats. Just like I live the most clean life I can regarding the environment (even without Al Gore's lectures). I don't need that threat to do it. I do it anyway. It's just the right way to live (for me).

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 21, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    The BBC reported that Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be ice free by 2013. In 2013, the Artic ice cover was 50% larger than it had been in 2012. In September of 2013, the sea ice levels had expanded to record levels for the second year in a row, as determined by data collected by Europe's Cryosat spacecraft

    "In the Arctic, for example, data collected by Europe's Cryosat spacecraft pointed to about 9,000 cubic kilometers of ice at the end of the 2013 melt season. In 2012, which was admittedly a low year, the total volume was about 6,000 cubic kilometers — in other words, Arctic ice grew by some 50 percent in 2013 over the previous year. Polar bear populations are thriving, too."

    (from The New American)

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 21, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    @2 bits – “Problem is.. this ice sheet melted 110,000 to 12,000 years ago (before humans, industry, etc, existed on earth)!”

    Yes, but the difference today is not only the current lack of natural causes driving warming, ocean acidification, etc., but the unprecedented speed at which these things are happening.

    But here’s what I find totally baffling about your post – do you honestly believe that you (along with right-wing media) have stumbled across some unknown piece of information that, if only climate scientists would pay attention to it they would realize that AGW is wrong?

    And by this logic if you went to 50 doctors and 49 of them told you your lifestyle (diet, partying, etc…) was killing you and 1 doctor said the opposite, you would be inclined to think the 49 were missing some vital piece of information. How is that reasonable?

    Wouldn’t you be on firmer ground (based on probability) to believe that the 49 doctors are probably right?

    By the way, the percentages in this example (2 out of 100) track pretty closely to what we see among the climate scientist consensus on AGW.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    @Old Man
    You don't have to buy AGW hook line and sinker... to act.

    I am acting... and doing all I can in my own life to use minimum energy and other resources. You don't have to be an AGW fan-boy to do that. It's just common sense (IMO).

    The AGW peoples guilt trip I have problems with. I don't need it to act.

    IMO we should individually be doing everything we can to conserve energy, money, any resources we have... and protect the world we live in by not littering, polluting, etc.

    I can't drop a candy wrapper on the ground. I've tried... I can't do it. When I see others do it I cringe. But I don't run up to them and try putting a guilt trip on them... or force them live the way I live... I just pick it up and move on.

    Same with AGW. The goal isn't force everybody else to live the way WE feel is right... just do what YOU can (and you have helped). You don't have to force others to accept your views, your politics, religion, or even AGW.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    I love that line in the letter "Mad-Made Global Warming."

    When you stop to think about it, it really is Mad.

    Mad as in insane.

    Allowing it to continue without at least trying to mitigate it is Mad.

    Mindless denial is Mad, too.

    Thank you DN, for providing some important additional insight into a totally MAD situation.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    It's too bad that all these naysayers will be dead and gone before they get to experience the higher temperatures, the food shortages, the droughts, the fires, the conflicts over resources, and the spread of deadly disease all exacerbated by man-made climate change.

    Our children will see it up close and personal and will not have the luxury of denial so they feel better about supporting the oil, gas and coal industries.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Aug. 21, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    "Mad-made" climate change. For sure.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 8:45 a.m.


    The ice sheet that used to cover most of North America also appears to be in irreversible decline, with nothing to stop the entire glacial basin from disappearing into the sea, this according to NASA (and every scientist alive).

    Problem is.. this ice sheet melted 110,000 to 12,000 years ago (before humans, industry, etc, existed on earth)! so you're going to have a REAL hard time blaming ice sheet melting on humans.

    Ice sheets decline... and they advance... it's a part of NATURE (not controlled by man).


    I'm going to get called a "Denier". But that's a risk I am willing to take to inject some rational thought into the discussion.

    If ice melting is caused by humans... what happened to the Pinedale and Fraser glaciers that used to cover the rockies (before man, fire, industrialization, or ANYTHING you blame for glacial changes)?


    Google "Last glacial period" and do some reading.

    It's very interesting (written by scientists). Evidently this isn't a NEW phenomena, and this earth had climate fluctuations BEFORE humans existed.

    I know... call it "Denial"... but read it... it's interesting to think about.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Aug. 21, 2014 7:13 a.m.


    Don't let this letter writer know it,
    but by DOING all those things --
    The environment - including Global Warming -
    will all be improved...

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Aug. 21, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    I think you are referring to a study by the American Meteorological Society which reported the following:

    "The study found that only 52 percent of its members believe global warming is happening and is caused mostly by humans."

    Unfortunately the members of the AMS are a diverse lot of technicians, TV weathermen, and others who are definitely not "climate scientists".

    Among the members who had published climate related papers 99% believed that climate change was happening, and 88% think that it is mostly caused by man!

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 5:43 a.m.

    "The consensus of some meteorologists..."

    Wow, just wow! At least he used the word consensus. Try 95% +/-...That would include the climate scientists at NASA...you know the guys who build space stations, the space shuttles and got us to the moon...that's good enough for my faith.

    Tomorrow's children will be thankful for anything we can do today to make their world more livable. I'm betting quality of life won't even be close to what we enjoy today. Are you willing to sacrifice a little or are you a greed-driven person?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 1:01 a.m.

    The rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in irreversible decline, with nothing to stop the entire glacial basin from disappearing into the sea, this according to NASA. The global sea level could rise 4 feet. All this thanks to AGW.

    But there's no dealing with AGW deniers.