Letter: NASA's expertise helps us reflect on climate change

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Liberal Survival on Planet Zion Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 25, 2017 10:16 a.m.

    Nate -

    "What do we call this? Proof by name-calling? I don't believe it falls within the scientific method".

    It's called proof by truth comrade! One dares mentioning "scientific method" when the evidence is overwhelming? Explain the science behind your argument. It's beyond irresponsible and quite sickening. Sticking one's head in the sand and screaming "fake news" is being part of the problem.

    "Check. None of them has proven the thing I'm asking for proof of: that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of modern warming".

    Checkmate comrade! You read nothing. You prove it isn't! 97% of the scientific community agree

    "the most frequently debunked claim on the Internet. Any source that uses it automatically gets zero credibility".

    "Debunk me"! Screaming "fake news" as does your supreme leader is what "automatically gets zero credibility" Again. You prove me wrong!

    "Appealing to authority is a classic fallacy".

    Deep yawn! Applying this ideology to religion as well?

    "I want to know the evidence, not who's on the honor role".

    If one took the time to pull their head from the sand and actually read the information cited they would realize the evidence is in abundance.

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 23, 2017 12:53 p.m.

    @Lib on Planet Zion "Denying Extremists"

    What do we call this? Proof by name-calling? I don't believe it falls within the scientific method.

    @Lib on Planet Zion "Read & thoroughly comprehend..."

    Check. None of them has proven the thing I'm asking for proof of: that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of modern warming.

    @Lib on Planet Zion "...97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree..."

    Not true. This must be the most frequently debunked claim on the Internet. Any source that uses it automatically gets zero credibility.

    @Lib on Planet Zion "AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES... SCIENCE ACADEMIES... U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES... INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES..."

    Appealing to authority is a classic fallacy. I want to know the evidence, not who's on the honor role.

  • Lib on Planet Zion Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 22, 2017 10:27 a.m.

    Denying Extremists:

    Read & thoroughly comprehend Svante Arrhenius, G.S. Callendar, C.D. Keeling, Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall. Also essay "Other Greenhouse Gases". Theories are discussed in the essay on "Simple Models of Climate".

    "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources". {NASA}

    AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
    American Association for the Advancement/Science
    American Chemical Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Medical Association
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    The Geological Society of America

    SCIENCE ACADEMIES
    International Academies
    U.S. National Academy of Sciences

    U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
    U.S. Global Change Research Program

    INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 22, 2017 9:25 a.m.

    @marxist
    RE: "Global warming is happening big time"...
    ---
    I know it's happening.

    I said it's happening in every comment. My question was... why did it take till 2007 for NASA to join the bandwagon if they know everything and it's been happening and detectable since mid-20th century?

    That's kinda slow on admitting they know it, if they've known since 1950s.

    But I get it.... they totally know about it now. And totally invested in proving it. I get it.

    It's important to prove it. But it's more important to solve it.

    What are you doing to solve it?

    What is NASA doing to solve it?

    Can you give us anything specific they are doing to fix the problem?

    I think I'm doing all I can. So I'm OK. But I don't think it's my job to shame others. That's not my job. That's your job.

    People who claim to know it's happening... and are not changing their life big time, bug me.

    My neighbor has a "Clean air NOW!" sign on his lawn. Then drives a huge SUV to work every day. And lives alone in a 4000 sq ft home (two furnaces, 2 air conditioners). Does he really want clean air now?

    He acts like it's my job (not his).

    People who just say they want clean air bug me.

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 5:34 p.m.

    @Frozen Fractals "AR5 WG1 Chapter 8 page 698 Figure 8.17..."

    First, thank you for your thoughtful response. You have a pattern of thoughtfulness that I respect and admire.

    I am looking at the chart and see that confidence levels have been assigned. I have read the section stating that confidence levels are based on evidence and agreement. What I would like to see is the component study that presents the evidence upon which the carbon dioxide forcing is based. In other words, where does the reported level of certainty come from? Which study demonstrated that carbon dioxide is the primary driver, and how was it demonstrated?

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 5:04 p.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon "You are either lazy, or can't read."

    I am neither lazy nor illiterate. You tell me that there are thousands of such articles. I ask for only one. But it must be the right one -- the peer-reviewed science article that demonstrates CO2 is the primary driver of modern warming.

    @Open Minded Mormon "I would sight them for you, but..."

    I'm not asking you to cite the entire article, nor to provide its URL. All I ask is its title, author, and date of publication. Just one.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 4:33 p.m.

    @2 bits "Global Cooling theories (which were consensus at the time) were later disproven. So much for consensus."

    From the "Rough Guide to Climate Change" by Robert Henson, a standard text:

    Haven't we had "global cooling" lately?

    The planet did cool slightly from the 1940s to the 1970s, mainly in the Northern Hemisphere and most likely a result of the post-war boom in industrial aerosol pollutants that bounce sunlight away from the Earth. Despite a flurry of 1970s media reports on an imminent ice age there was never anything approaching a scientific consensus on the likelihood of further cooling, and it appears that greenhouse warming has long since eclipsed the mid-century cool spell.

    Go to Climate dot Gov to confirm global warming is happening big time.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Sept. 21, 2017 3:02 p.m.

    "Global Cooling theories (which were consensus at the time) were later disproven. So much for consensus."

    2 bits, you didn't even read your own prooftexts correctly. They say nothing of consensus, but use the words "conjecture," "temporary popular attention," "some support in the scientific community," and "triggered speculation."

    None of that language approaches anything like the consensus language surrounding global warming in the 21st century. It's one thing to provide counterarguments to scientific positions, but this is merely sloppy sourcing.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 2:49 p.m.

    @silo 10:38
    RE: "The majority of published, peer reviewed climate research from the 1970's was already discussing global warming".
    ---
    Scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades

    Google "Global cooling - Wikipedia"...

    "Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had some support in the scientific community, and gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s".

    Steven Schneider 1971 predicting global cooling

    J. Murray Mitchell
    He showed as early as 1963 a multidecadal cooling since about 1940. In 1965 he published evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might trigger ice ages.

    Some scientists published on both topics, like Mikhail Budyko, one of the scientists who helped document the cooling trend.

    Global Cooling theories (which were consensus at the time) were later disproven. So much for consensus.

  • Liberal On Planet Zion SLC, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 2:43 p.m.

    The Infowars/Breitbart parrots out in force regurgitating Faux News and their a.m. radio heroes. Should those which prefer reality and factually based conversation be surprised any longer with this anti science, anti equality, misogynist demographic and the unwillingness/refusal to accept factual information? Regardless of the topic. This is their mantra! The hatred of Liberals/Obama supersedes love of country. After all, these are individuals which claimed President Obama was not born in America. That there is zero correlation between gun violence in America and lack of logical, sensible and responsible gun control. These are individuals which not only support the hate rhetoric that continues to spew from Trump's mouth they actually applaud and celebrate the rhetoric! We can no longer wait for these extremist deniers to remove their tinfoil hats. Should there be a debate regarding Darwinism as well? Another Scopes trial? The time has arrived to become part of the solution rather the continued problem. Once this occurs we can begin progress that truly makes a difference. Especially regarding a topic that are children/grandchildren will be wondering what took us all so long to act!

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 12:53 p.m.

    @silo "It's great that you believe that, but it's not clear why you directed that response to me."

    Because in comments to previous articles it has been your stock response to the same question. I wanted to save you some time and energy.

    @silo "Do keep ranting about the IPCC though."

    Someone tells me the sky is falling, and I say prove it. I guess that's a "rant."

    @marxist "But nothing is going to change your mind. Others should have a look."

    I have looked. What you say is there, isn't there.

    I am looking for the peer-reviewed article that demonstrates CO2 is the primary driver of modern global warming. Title, author, date of publication. That's what I'm looking for.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 12:21 p.m.

    @jsf
    "How about the Artic min. ice has increased from prior years"

    And this year's going to probably be the 2nd or 3rd warmest on record globally. That doesn't mean the almost 40 year (for satellite sea ice data) or 100 year (for global temperature) trend can just be ignored.

    Natural variation still exists, it's not like it's a simple system that sees a drop in ice and a rise in temperature every year. But there's still an underlying trend that is clear in the data. 2012 (for sea ice) and 2016 (for temperature) broke records by huge margins so it'll take a while to see those beaten just like it took a while for 2007 (sea ice) and 1998 (temperature) to be beaten.

    @nate
    "No, the 5th IPCC report is not that proof."

    AR5 WG1 Chapter 8 page 698 Figure 8.17 shows the effects of various components of radiative forcing. The 95% confidence interval on CO2 is around +1.5 to +1.85 W/m2 so (since 2.5% is the odds of being higher than that range) there's only a 2.5% chance that it's below +1.5W/m2.

    The 95% CI range on the sun is about 0 to +0.1 W/m2.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 12:15 p.m.

    What is really funny is how back in August NASA stated that the recent hurricanes had nothing to do with climate change, and that they should not be linked together. NASA has stated "It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. " Maybe NASA is in denial.

    To "Allisdair" but the hurricanes have not gone as predicted. The predictions 20 years ago said we would have more and more powerful hurricanes. The fact is we have had fewer less powerful hurricanes prior to this season.

    To "Roland Kayser" the difference is that the moon's orbit is understood, climate change is not understood.

    To "Blue" actually politics is a large part of NASA. They will promise politicians anything as long as they get funding. Think of it this way, would NASA get the same level of funding for climate change research if it was purely natural?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 12:06 p.m.

    @2bits
    "NASA has been around since 1958. They've had weather satellites for at least 30 years. Why did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only come to the conclusion in 2007?"

    2007 was their 4th assessment report. They came to the same conclusion in their 1st report (1990). Since the 70s the climate scientists have been decidedly saying warming (before then there was more uncertainty, like in the 60s there was also the fast rising negative anthropogenic component, aerosols, to consider, but we regulated those pretty effectively since they were a pollution issue).

    @What in Tucket?
    "Rises in CO2 in past eons have followed temperature rises."

    Which is more evidence that humans are involved this time because generally the way it works is there's some temperature increase, which fuels some GHG increase, which further increases temperature, and so on in that pattern at a pretty slow scale. This time humans dramatically increased CO2 (relative to the usual Milankovitch cycle that brought us from 200 to 280 in about 10,000 years we went from 280 to 400 in under 200 years). It still has the same feedback on temperature though.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 11:58 a.m.

    Why is it that every time I mention particular weather events (like early snowstorms or record cold temps) as a rebuttal to AGW, I get lambasted by the left? Yet, every time there are particular weather events (like a couple of hurricanes), the left uses them to "prove" their theory of AGW?

    Modern day dictionary:

    Hypocrisy /hpÄkrs/ noun

    See: Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 11:54 a.m.

    @JCS
    "How arrogant of man to believe that he can control the climate."

    Now that you're "back home" I'm sure that means you must've lived here long enough (either since or before leaving) to know that during the winter our inversion events (which are natural) gain more pollution due to human sources like from vehicles. Humans created the ozone hole problem with CFCs. Humans caused acid rain problems.

    Humans are why CO2, a greenhouse gas, has increased from about 280ppm to 400ppm at a scale almost 100x faster than it rose from 200 to 280 from the normal natural Milankovitch cycle. Why wouldn't that make a difference? It wouldn't make sense for it to not make a difference since the resulting radiation budget wouldn't add up without some sort of adjustment. Humans don't "control" weather, but what we do does cause shifts. More greenhouse gases means more warming and that shifts the odds of a wide variety of things in the climate. We don't have any real control on what the end result looks like but we definitely nudged the system.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 11:52 a.m.

    @jsf

    "How about the Artic min. ice has increased from prior years, though the news...failing to say it increased over prior years."

    Please do a bit of research on sea ice extent increasing. It's not a good thing and it doesn't support your argument that warming isn't impacting the polar ice.

    "A new study about Glacier national Park says the glaciers are growing again. "

    So cite the study for the benefit of others.

    "A landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide..."

    So cite the 'landmark paper'.

    "Scientist keep reiterating there is no correlation to the hurricanes and storms to global warming..."

    So cite these scientists and their peer reviewed research.

    Without providing specifics on the papers/research you claim exist, all you've provided is anecdotes and opinions. Please provide specifics to support your statements.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 11:49 a.m.

    @JCS
    "I strenuously disagree with this letter's attempt to drag NASA into the climate change dispute. NASA was key in defeating the USSR, but it has otherwise stayed out of politics."

    The science of climate change is not political and researching the Earth's climate is a core mission of NASA.

    What we do about climate change from a policy perspective is political. These things can be separate. There's nothing wrong with thinking the Earth is warming, that humans are largely responsible for the warming the past 150 years due to our rapid increase of greenhouse gases... and then disagreeing with Democratic policy ideas for what to do about it.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 10:38 a.m.

    @2 bits

    "Why did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only come to the conclusion in 2007?"

    False. The IPCC was formed in 1988 and issued their first assessment report on climate change in 1990.

    "Why did they not see it in 1967? Or 1977? Back then nobody (including NASA) was talking about Global Warming."

    Also false. The majority of published, peer reviewed climate research from the 1970's was already discussing global warming.

    "Or did we need Al Gore to tell us first? Hint... his movie came out in 2006."

    Misleading. Gore led the first congressional hearing on climate change in the 1980s. He authored a book on the subject(which was a precursor to his movie) in 1992. Regardless of those two previous dates, Gore's 2006 movie accurately cites global warming research from decades earlier.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 10:35 a.m.

    @Nate "I would like to see them use the scientific method to prove their most basic hypothesis: that CO2 is the primary driver of modern global warming. They have not done this."

    The physics of CO2 as a blanket gas, collecting long wave emissions from the earth, is well understood. Also a powerful case can be made for CO2 as the driver for climate change at Climate dot Gov, Climate Dashboard.

    But nothing is going to change your mind. Others should have a look.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 10:24 a.m.

    How about the Artic min. ice has increased from prior years, though the news only reports it as the eighth lowest extent failing to say it increased over prior years. A new study about Glacier national Park says the glaciers are growing again. CO2 is increasing, and the planet is getting greener.

    A landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.

    Scientist keep reiterating there is no correlation to the hurricanes and storms to global warming, yet agw advocates ignore the scientists to continue this false narrative by hysterical news anchors at places like CNN and MSNBC.

    Is the science settled? Absolutely not.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 10:15 a.m.

    @nate

    "No, the 5th IPCC report is not that proof."

    It's great that you believe that, but it's not clear why you directed that response to me. My only comment in this thread was a response to JCS, who claimed the letter writer was dragging NASA into the climate change discussion.

    I replied (accurately) that NASA has been active in the climate change discussion without anyone 'dragging' them into it.

    Do keep ranting about the IPCC though.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 10:06 a.m.

    "Scientists" in NASA who tout climate change were hired because they are part of that religion. 87% of climate change predictions have been wrong. Let's say that we really want to find a way to get an effective and economical alternate energy. Then we should try to maintain a robust economy so we can afford to do it. In the meantime wind and solar are not cheap. CO2 is good it is not a pollutant and has nothing to do with climate change. Rises in CO2 in past eons have followed temperature rises.

  • stochra Holladay, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 9:57 a.m.

    "How arrogant of man to believe that he can control the climate. "

    We may not be able to control it, but we sure can affect it. When I look back on the predictions about climate change, they seem to be understated. That is, the effects are happening a lot sooner than expected. Some people focus on the possibility that climate change won't be as bad as predicted. I suggest giving equal weight to the possibility that it will be worse than predicted.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 9:47 a.m.

    @Allisdair "The Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones are becoming more powerful as predicted."

    You may wish to check your facts. The sum of ACE estimates across all storms of a season has not increased from year to year. The trend is flat.

    @Roland Keyser "They use the same scientific method to measure global warming."

    I would like to see them use the scientific method to prove their most basic hypothesis: that CO2 is the primary driver of modern global warming. They have not done this.

    Proving it in virtual reality doesn't count.

    @silo

    No, the 5th IPCC report is not that proof. It is a policy document claiming levels of certainty not found anywhere in its contributing science.

    @David Folland "So when NASA sends earth satellites to study the climate, it behooves us to reflect on its expertise."

    Yes, let's talk about those satellites. Their measurements are much more accurate than surface-based temperature monitoring. They indicate mild, gradual warming -- not catastrophic warming. Of course, the surface-based temperatures need to be "adjusted" before they show it. Funny that we still put up with that for some reason.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 9:06 a.m.

    If GW is true (and it is) then it's been happening for a long time. Not just the past 10 years.

    If NASA knows all... and GW is true (which it is)... why did NASA not issue their report on GW until 2007?

    NASA has been around since 1958. They've had weather satellites for at least 30 years. Why did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only come to the conclusion in 2007? By all accounts it's been happening since the middle of the 20th century. Why did they not see it in 1967? Or 1977?

    Back then nobody (including NASA) was talking about Global Warming. Why?

    Did we just get real smart in 2007?

    Or did we need Al Gore to tell us first? Hint... his movie came out in 2006.

    The first report I can find from NASA on GW was in 2007.

    Maybe NASA just woke up in 2007... I don't know.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 8:08 a.m.

    @JCS "How arrogant of man to believe that he can control the climate. Man is but a little creature that cannot control the elements."

    Consider the Salt Lake valley. Have human beings largely reshaped its appearance and structure since 1847? Yes, so what's so different in a theological sense from climate?

    Or how about the Panama Canal? Man has changed the "elements" in that part of the world big time. Two major oceans have been connected. How is that so different from climate?

    Man substantially controls the elements.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 7:38 a.m.

    NASA is, properly, shorthand for "A large group of smart professionals who are really good at using technology to achieve results that we can all be proud of."

    "Politics" is no more a part of NASA's carefully verified research on climate than it is in sending probes to Pluto. NASA deals in what's real and testable, because anything else is simply a guarantee of failure. I wish we all go approach public policy that way.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 6:36 a.m.

    Yeah but the current occupant of the White House doesn't believe in science or climate change. He also doesn't believe in NASA. He wants to appoint a politician to head up the agency. NASA employees are not happy, even the ones that voted for Trump.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 6:22 a.m.

    @ John Charity Spring -- "How arrogant of man to believe that he can control the climate. Man is but a little creature that cannot control the elements."

    I hear this argument again and again from climate deniers as if they want to deny how Man has moved from caves, harnessed the land and elements to shape civilization and transform the world into today's 21st century marvel of instantaneous communications to nuclear bombs to rocket flight to other worlds.

    Man, the little arrogant creature, has dug up ancient carbon sequestered from a millennia ago, burned it, and released it into today's atmosphere. To believe this has no consequence on today's atmosphere is an act of faith in the face of basic physics.

    It is like having a glass of water not completely full. The state of the water and glass are stable. The more water you pour in, however, the consequences result in water spilling out, creating a mess. This is how to think about adding carbon into today's atmosphere. The added carbon is creating a mess. Pouring too much water into the glass might even tip the glass over. That's a simple physics lesson.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 12:43 a.m.

    @JCS
    "I strenuously disagree with this letter's attempt to drag NASA into the climate change dispute."

    Despite your claims to the contrary, the letter didn't 'drag NASA' anywhere.

    climate dot nasa dot gov

  • UtahnAbroad Sandy, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 12:26 a.m.

    The climate is changing. We can bury our head in the sand or we can work to prepare for it.

    The US military is preparing for climate change. NASA is preparing for climate change. Nearly every other country in the world discusses openly.

    Only the US refuses to believe. Why?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 21, 2017 12:23 a.m.

    NASA predicted the recent eclipse using the scientific method. Nobody questioned whether they were politically motivated to do so. They use the same scientific method to measure global warming. What's the difference?

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Sept. 20, 2017 10:09 p.m.

    I am most amused by the attitude that belief in climate change is associated with all the perceived evils of Western European values.

    I can not understand how one can believe some science and the method of its understandings, yet become a science skeptic when it somehow proven science interferes with one's political ideologies.

    That is what is called confirmation bias, or in this case unconfirmation bias. That is if the science of a situation is in conflict with a strongly held political or religious belief, then that science is necessarily corrupted in some form.

    I maintain that this unconfirmation bias is one of the greater ills of American society than divergence from fundamentalist religious dogma or whatever other heresy that is committed by our best allies in Western Europe. And that those who call this unconfirmation bias out are out of the mainstream. Heck, they are not even in the trickle.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    Sept. 20, 2017 9:58 p.m.

    @John Charity Spring - Back Home in Davis County, UT

    "How arrogant of man to believe that he can control the climate. Man is but a little creature that cannot control the elements".

    Sorry John I strenuously disagree with your comment, we stuffed thousands of tons of nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere and caused acid rain back in the 70s. We don't have the problem now because we scrub the emissions from smoke stacks.

    Then we developed CFCs that collectively thinned the Ozone layer to the point it had a hole in to over the lower latitudes of the southern hemisphere. In another 30 years at the last estimate the Ozone layer will be back to its previous state.

    So I would say follow foolish is man that thinks the collective actions of billions of people will not effect our only home. There is no plan B.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    Sept. 20, 2017 8:24 p.m.

    I also have been amazed by NASA's achievements over my life, I still remember "One small step for man, one giant leap forward for mankind". Voyager 1 and 2 are still reporting back 40 years after lift off.

    So yes it is hard to understand the science contrarians accepting NASA's deep space achievements but ignoring the earth observations.

    First we need to understand the cause of their concern; that is what motivates the contrarians.

    The Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones are becoming more powerful as predicted. The prediction is based on increased ocean water temperature increasing energy in the storms. It is just one example of the impacts on the climate.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Sept. 20, 2017 8:19 p.m.

    I strenuously disagree with this letter's attempt to drag NASA into the climate change dispute. NASA was key in defeating the USSR, but it has otherwise stayed out of politics.

    The so-called climate change debate is largely a product of those who seek to turn this Country into just another European-style, post-Christian, socialist state. There is nothing in outer space that supports this effoet, and so much that refutes it.

    How arrogant of man to believe that he can control the climate. Man is but a little creature that cannot control the elements.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Sept. 20, 2017 4:43 p.m.

    Belief is only what ya can count on or depend on. There are two sides to every story. yours and mine. I like to tell ya mine but. The they don't won't it known.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 20, 2017 4:02 p.m.

    NASA has always been an inspiring organisation to me. Indeed, the Kennedy Space Centre is the only worthwhile attraction of central Florida, other than a Giordano's pizza location. I'd go back there and spend another day in a heartbeat.